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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does notably well: it discloses the confirm gate, owner-only auth requirement, and the downstream consequence that members holding the role lose its access. It does not describe the preview-vs-execute response behavior, but the schema's confirm field covers that.

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 tight sentences, all front-loaded with the destructive action and the confirmation gate before the consequence. 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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and thin schema coverage, the description supplies the critical missing context: privilege requirement, confirmation workflow, and consequence. Only the per-parameter semantics of organizationId/roleId are left thin.

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 only 33% (only 'confirm' is documented). The description compensates partially by emphasizing 'exactly which role' (roleId) and describing the confirmation behavior, but organizationId and roleId formats/scoping remain undocumented. Marginal value above the schema.

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 (Delete) and resource (custom gym role), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling create_/update_/list_organization_custom_role tools. An agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 clear context: 'Owner only' establishes the required authorization level and 'Get explicit confirmation of exactly which role first' prescribes a precondition workflow. It stops short of naming alternative tools, but the destruction semantics make the routing obvious.

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