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 valuable non-obvious behavior: deletion cascades to records and to link fields in other tables, and the action is permanent. It does not mention permissions or return behavior, but the cascade disclosure is significant.

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 efficient sentence with no waste, front-loading the destructive action and cascade consequences.

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 simple two-parameter destructive tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral facts: permanent deletion plus cascade effects. It leaves baseId semantics and usage alternatives unaddressed, but the core safety context is present.

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 50%, and the description explains neither parameter. The schema documents 'table' as name or id, but baseId has no description in either place, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a table') and explicitly states the scope: its records and link fields in other tables. This clearly distinguishes it from delete_records and delete_field.

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 word 'Permanently' implies this is for irreversible removal, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives such as update_table or delete_field. Usage is only implied from the verb and resource.

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