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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds scope ('one target language') and the ID-source context, but does not disclose additional behavioral details like irreversibility or consequences beyond the annotation.

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, no filler, with the key action and key source front-loaded. The user-facing naming instruction earns its place and is compact.

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 2-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and annotations covering destructive behavior, the description covers what is needed: what is deleted, how to key it, and how to talk about the result. No meaningful gap remains.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that projectLanguageId comes from get_project or list_style_guides and by providing a naming convention for user-facing replies, which helps the agent use the parameters correctly.

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') plus resource ('style guide'), scoped to 'one target language of a project' and keyed by project_language id. This clearly differentiates it from delete_glossary_entry and set_style_guide without needing to open the schema.

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 provides useful prerequisites by pointing to get_project or list_style_guides for the ID, but it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives such as set_style_guide, and it gives no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. The intended use is implied by the title rather than stated.

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