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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses a meaningful side effect: matching translation-memory entries are marked stale so affected content is re-translated without the removed term. This gives the agent important context about the downstream consequences of deletion.

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 three sentences with no fluff: the core action is front-loaded, the side effect is stated next, and the user-facing id policy is a practical addition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what is deleted, where it comes from, what side effects occur, and how to communicate about it. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

The input schema already fully documents both parameters, including the UUID format and the note that entryId comes from list_glossary. The description reinforces this by mentioning 'by its id (from list_glossary)' but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 action (delete) and resource (a single glossary entry), further scoped by 'by its id (from list_glossary)' and 'from a project in your organisation'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_glossary and add_glossary_entries.

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 explains the prerequisite that the entry id comes from list_glossary and that deletion happens within a project in the organisation. It also includes concrete guidance about using names/locales instead of UUIDs when replying to the user, though it does not explicitly contrast this tool with same-family alternatives like delete_style_guide.

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