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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations by adding concrete behavioral details: repeated deletion succeeds and the tool returns true on success. This gives the agent confidence about idempotent retries and expected return behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core action stated first, followed by the consequence, idempotency note, and return value. Each of the three sentences adds distinct useful information with no filler.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter deletion tool with rich annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema. The description covers the outcome, idempotent behavior, and return value, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

The schema has 100% coverage, with the id parameter already described as 'ID of the proxy to delete.' The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the schema fully documents the only parameter, so baseline 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 starts with the specific verb 'Deletes' and names the exact resource, an organization's proxy. It also states the purpose ('so it can no longer be used for rendering'), which clearly differentiates this from get, update, and list proxy tools.

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 clearly implies this tool is used when a proxy should be removed and made unusable for rendering. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but for a straightforward deletion tool the usage context is reasonably evident.

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