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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: 'Permanently' communicates irreversibility, and 'after explicit confirmation' discloses the confirmation gate that maps to the required `confirmed` flag. It still omits permission/auth requirements and side effects on dependent data.

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; the destructive action and its prerequisite are both conveyed economically.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations supply the safety profile. The description is nearly complete for this mutation, though it could note behavior when `confirmed` is false or missing.

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 0% for two parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only loosely gestures at `confirmed` via 'explicit confirmation' and says nothing about the `trackId` format or what value of `confirmed` is expected.

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 track'), making it readily distinguishable from update_custom_track, get_custom_track, and list_custom_tracks by name and action. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings in the description text.

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?

'after explicit confirmation' implies a precondition, but the description gives no guidance on when to delete versus update/archive instead, nor any exclusion or warning beyond the confirmation gate. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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