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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing blast radius — pre-made flows are unaffected and existing runs retain their tasks, i.e. deletion does not cascade. It stops short of stating permission requirements, confirmation behavior, or the outcome when the plan is not found.

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 short sentences with the verb and resource front-loaded, followed by the two constraints that actually matter (no impact on ready-made flows, no impact on past runs). No filler or restatement of the title.

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 no output schema, the description covers what is deleted, how it is identified, and what survives. The remaining omission is behavior on missing/invalid identifiers or when neither parameter is provided, which matters given both fields are nullable.

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 0% and both fields are optional with null defaults, so the schema alone leaves the agent guessing. The description recovers the key semantic — identify the plan by either agent_office_plan_id or agent_office_plan_uuid — but says nothing about precedence if both are supplied, which one is preferred, or what happens if both are null.

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) and a precisely scoped resource: the merchant's own AI Office plans, covering both a plan graph and a legacy step list. It also maps the tool to the panel's plans/custom/delete and distinguishes it from anything pre-made ('ready-made flows are never touched'), which helps separate it from template/create siblings, though no sibling tool is named directly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than prescribed: the agent learns it deletes a merchant-owned plan identified by id or uuid and that built-in flows are excluded, but there is no explicit 'use this when… / do not use this when…' guidance relative to edit_agent_office_plan_graph, copy_agent_office_plan_graph, or list_agent_office_plans. The exclusions given are about effect, not about tool selection.

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