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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnly=false, so the mutation risk is covered. The description adds the key behavioral fact that deletion is deferred until the owner confirms in the browser with the management key, which goes beyond the structured annotations and is important for agent expectations.

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 no filler: the first states the main action, the second gives the essential caveat. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 action, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient: required parameters are declared, the destructive nature is annotated, and the browser-confirmation caveat is stated. It does not mention return values or how to check resulting operation status, but that is a minor gap given the sibling get_operation_status.

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%, so the description must compensate for explaining preview_id and confirm_delete. It only indirectly references an 'existing preview' and owner confirmation, and never explains that confirm_delete must be passed as true or that preview_id must match the pv_ pattern.

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 states a specific action ('Prepare deletion') and resource ('an existing preview'), making it clear this concerns the deletion lifecycle rather than creation, updates, or status checks. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the action is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Prepare deletion of an existing preview' and the caveat that deletion only occurs after owner confirmation clearly indicate this is the initiation step of a deletion flow. It provides clear context but does not enumerate exclusions or explicit alternatives like 'use update_preview instead'.

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