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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the auth requirement and the downstream effect that scheduled checks stop, which an agent would not infer from the annotations alone.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, then auth requirement, then ID provenance. Every sentence carries distinct operational information with no filler.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, permissions, and ID source, and both params are fully documented in the schema. It stops short of stating whether the deletion is recoverable or what happens to historical trend data, which would complete the picture.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented in the schema including that projectId is required and where to obtain it. The description reinforces the ID source but adds no syntax, format, or constraint beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Deletes a tracked prompt') and adds the consequential side effect ('stopping its scheduled checks'), so the agent understands this is more than a record removal. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many other delete_* siblings, but the named resource is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a hard prerequisite ('Requires the admin role in the calling organization') and routes the agent to the source of the ID ('Get the trackedPromptId from list_tracked_prompts'). No explicit when-not or alternative-tool guidance, but the context needed to invoke successfully is present.

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