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 adds useful context beyond the annotations by emphasizing 'Permanently' and stating the 1-to-200 batch limit, though it does not mention required permissions or what happens to missing IDs.

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 with no filler. Every element ('Permanently', '1 to 200', 'by id') contributes directly to correct invocation.

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 destructive, three-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the ID batch constraint but omits how baseId and table scope the deletion. Annotations cover safety, and there is no output schema to explain, but the parameter-level gaps keep it from being complete.

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 only 33%, with 'baseId' undocumented and 'table' only lightly described. The description adds meaning only for the 'ids' parameter by stating the 1-to-200 range; it does not explain how baseId and table identify the target records.

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 ('delete') and resource ('records'), plus the key scope detail 'by id'. It distinguishes itself from read/query siblings implicitly through the delete verb, but does not explicitly contrast with update_records or delete_field/delete_table.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as update_records or deleting via other tools. 'By id' hints that the caller must already know record IDs, but this is left implicit rather than stated as a selection condition.

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