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

The description fully discloses the permanent nature, the loss of filter config, and the immediate effect on Runs. It also aligns with the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, going beyond them to explain specific side effects.

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 description is two sentences, direct and free of extraneous information. It packs essential details into a compact structure without sacrificing clarity.

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 simple delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the core action, consequences, and alternative. No additional context (e.g., error handling, prerequisites) is necessary for an agent to understand and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

Both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema (agentId as 'The agent's unique identifier' and triggerId as 'The trigger to delete'). The description adds no further parameter-specific detail, but the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (permanently delete), the resource (event triggers on an agent), and the effect (stops starting Runs, filter config lost). It also distinguishes from the alternative of disabling via upsert, making the purpose 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. the alternative: 'To keep the trigger but stop it firing, upsert it with `enabled: false` instead.' This directly tells the agent when not to use it, leaving no ambiguity.

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