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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds that the operation also removes the revision's files and that active revisions are protected. This is useful behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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?

Two sentences pack the action, scope, side effect, and a limitation with no filler. The key constraints are front-loaded before the prerequisite guidance.

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 one-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it states what is deleted, what files are affected, and the one condition under which deletion fails. No critical operational detail is 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already defines skill_revision_id with uuid format and description. The description's draft/historic framing hints at valid IDs, but it does not add substantially new parameter-level meaning.

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 action (delete), resource (skill revision), scope (draft or historic), and explicitly excludes active revisions. This distinguishes it from deleteSkill and updateSkillRevision/promoteSkillRevision without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

Clearly indicates when it can be used (draft/historic revisions) and when it cannot (active revision), with a prerequisite instruction to activate another revision first. It does not name the exact sibling tool for promotion, so it stops short of full explicit routing.

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