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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two traits that matter most for a destructive tool: the deletion is permanent and it is confirm-gated. It also flags the non-cascading side effect on coach/client assignments. It omits permission/authorization requirements and what the response returns.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler; the permanence and the destructive side effect are both front-loaded.

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, non-read-only tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers irreversibility, the confirm preview gate, and the assignment side effect. It is nearly complete, missing only auth/permission context and the absence of any return-value note.

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 50% — the 'confirm' parameter is fully documented in the schema while 'locationId' has no description at all. The description reinforces the confirm gate but adds no identifier format or meaning for locationId, so it only partially compensates for the gap.

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 ('Permanently delete a location') with the added qualifier that the deletion is irreversible. It is naturally distinguishable from create_organization_location and update_organization_location, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 clear precondition for safe use: coaches and clients assigned to the location are not moved, so they must be reassigned first. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives (e.g. deactivating vs deleting) or stating when deletion is inappropriate.

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