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

The annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond this: stored credentials are deleted, the underlying bucket/files are preserved, repeated deletion succeeds, and it returns true on success. This gives the agent a fuller picture of side effects and behavior.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct useful information: what is deleted, what is not deleted, idempotency, and return value. The most important scoping detail is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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?

The tool is simple with a single required parameter, annotations cover the safety profile, an output schema exists, and the description covers side effects and success behavior. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool 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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'id' parameter, and the description does not add parameter-specific meaning. The schema fully documents what the parameter is, so the description adds no additional semantic value here.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Deletes the storage destination configuration and its stored credentials.' It clearly identifies what is being deleted and distinguishes this from sibling deletion tools like delete_og_config and delete_proxy by naming the storage destination resource.

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 clear scope boundaries, especially that the bucket and stored files are not deleted, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention related lifecycle tools like create_storage_destination or update_storage_destination. Usage is implied rather than directly guided.

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