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

Annotations already set destructiveHint: true. The description adds value by stating the action 'permanently delete...as if it had never been recorded', and specifies it destroys realized profit if the lot was sold. It also warns 'This cannot be undone'. This enriches the behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and its effect. The second clarifies the exception case and names the alternative tool. The third gives a user-facing constraint. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool with clear destructiveHint and high schema coverage, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, and user caution. No additional information is needed for effective invocation.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description itself does not add detailed param info, but the schema already provides 'The lot id shown by GetMyPortfolio' and 'The portfolio holding the lot, by name'. The description reaffirms the purpose of the lot (mistaken entry) which indirectly helps parameter understanding. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage; the extra context on when a lot should be removed justifies a 4.

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?

The description uses the specific verb 'delete' and the resource 'lot from the USER's portfolio', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool ClosePortfolioLot by stating it is for lots entered by mistake and that it's not how a sale is recorded. The description fully clarifies the tool's unique purpose.

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?

Explicit usage guidelines are provided: when to use (a lot entered by mistake), when not to use (not for recording a sale), and the alternative (use ClosePortfolioLot for that). Also advises to confirm with the user before proceeding.

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