Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that – it doesn't say whether deletion cascades to child elements, whether it requires ownership, or whether the parent page is affected.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a one-parameter tool. It is terse to the point of omitting needed context, but it wastes no words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive mutation tool, the description leaves out what actually gets removed, side effects on related tiles, and any permission requirements. Annotations cover the safety hints and there is no output schema, but the description still leaves the agent under-informed about the consequences of the call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single 'id' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The phrase 'by id' identifies which parameter is the lookup key but adds no detail on format, scope, or where the id comes from, so it only marginally compensates.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a tile') and identifies the lookup key ('by id'), so the operation is immediately clear. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like update_tile or move_tile, which also operate on tiles, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no guidance on how it differs from update_tile or add_tile. An agent must infer the use case entirely.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.