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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the deletion is cascading, taking the prompt's run history with it. It still omits reversibility (no sibling restore/undelete exists for prompts), permission requirements, and return behavior.

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 or repetition; the destructive scope ('and its history') is stated immediately. It is terse rather than padded, though the terseness comes at the cost of guidance the agent needs.

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, irreversible-adjacent operation with three completely undocumented identifier parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It should at minimum clarify that all three IDs are needed to identify the prompt and warn that history loss cannot be undone; the annotations alone do not tell the agent which identifiers to supply.

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 three required identifiers (projectId, siteId, monitorId), and the description supplies no parameter information whatsoever — it only implies a single prompt is targeted. With three undocumented required IDs at zero coverage, the description fails to compensate for the schema 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 ('Delete') and resource ('a tracked prompt'), which cleanly separates it from delete_ai_visibility_topic or delete_article in the sibling list. It does not, however, explicitly name an alternative or contrast with the prompt-mutating siblings (update_ai_visibility_prompt, move_ai_visibility_prompts).

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?

The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus set_ai_visibility_prompt_status, move_ai_visibility_prompts, or update_ai_visibility_prompt, and no prerequisites or warnings about irreversibility. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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