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

Adds substantial information beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: it discloses that the delete is soft, that Apollo support can restore the graph, that all variants stop serving, and that the call returns null on success. An agent knows the reversibility, blast radius, and return contract before calling.

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?

The most important facts (destructive scope, soft delete, confirmation requirement) are front-loaded in short sentences with no filler. The closing 'Provide the graph ID' partly repeats the earlier confirmation sentence, a small redundancy.

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 single-parameter destructive tool, the description covers reversibility, effect on variants, and the return value, and an output schema is present. The one remaining gap is the ambiguity of what a 'graph ID' looks like when variants exist, which matters for a delete.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it only says 'Provide the graph ID' / 'confirm the graph ID with the user.' It adds the notion of user confirmation but never clarifies the expected format (bare ID vs. graph ref/variant) or whether a variant-qualified ref is accepted.

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 graph') and anchors it to a known CLI equivalent ('rover graph delete'), which distinguishes it from siblings like DeleteSubgraph or DeleteApiKey. The added note that 'every variant of the graph stops serving' makes the blast radius of this particular delete 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 clear precondition ('confirm the graph ID with the user before you call this') and implies the scope condition (whole graph, all variants). It does not explicitly contrast with DeleteSubgraph or say when a soft delete is preferable to other alternatives, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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