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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is an irreversible write. The description adds the useful nuance that it is permanent and frees resources, but says nothing about required permissions, cascading effects (e.g. attached domains, volumes, secrets), or failure modes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence of ten words with zero filler. Nothing is wasted and the key qualifier ('Permanently') comes first.

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 one-parameter delete with annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is minimally sufficient. However, in a dense deploy_* sibling set, the absence of disambiguation against stop/auto_destroy and of any note about dependent resources leaves a real gap for a destructive operation.

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 100% and the single parameter (deploymentId) is documented as a UUID in the schema. The description adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a deployment') and adds the consequence 'free its resources'. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like nexusai_deploy_stop or nexusai_deploy_auto_destroy, which an agent must choose between.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. With eight other deploy_* siblings, several of which also make a deployment go away (stop, auto_destroy, rollback), the description should say when deletion is the right call versus those alternatives. Only the word 'Permanently' hints at irreversibility.

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