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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds context annotations cannot: irreversibility ('It cannot be restored'), cascade semantics (deleting a segment deletes its prompts and answers; deleting a prompt deletes its answers), and billing effect ('Free, and frees the plan capacity the item used'). This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the one-ID rule, then cascade effects, then alternatives. Every sentence carries information, though the trailing 'Free, and frees the plan capacity the item used' is a slightly appended billing note rather than a core fact.

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 multi-target tool with an output schema already covering return values, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: mutual exclusivity of the ID parameters, irreversibility, cascade blast radius, and escape hatches. Nothing material is left unstated.

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 100%, so per-parameter meaning is already documented (baseline 3). The description adds a genuine cross-parameter constraint not expressible in the schema: exactly one ID must be supplied. It does not, however, elaborate on the brand/idempotency_key pairing beyond what the schema states.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and enumerates exactly which resources are deletable (competitor, segment, prompt, page, report), plus the constraint 'pass exactly one of its IDs'. It is immediately distinguishable from save_competitor, save_segment, save_prompt and revoke_report, which it names.

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?

It gives explicit when-not guidance and routes to alternatives: pause via save_competitor/save_segment/save_prompt to keep history, or revoke_report to kill only a report's link. The selection conditions are stated, not inferred.

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