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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it states irreversibility, the exact data cascade, ownership-based authorization, the 404/409 failure semantics, and the billing side effects (payment record retained, spent credit not refunded). That is precisely the extra context an agent needs before an irreversible call.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its destructive scope, then layered constraints in escalating order (authorization, refusal, side effects). Every clause carries a distinct operational fact; nothing is redundant across the four sentences.

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, irreversible tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is destroyed, what survives (payment record, non-refunded credit), who may call it, and how failures manifest via HTTP codes. Nothing material is left to inference.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining that dealId comes from generate_contract. The description adds no format, source, or constraint detail for dealId beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource (delete a single-party deal) and immediately enumerates the scope of what is removed (parties, other side's details, clause choices, inputs, contract). The single-party scoping distinguishes it from any deal operation that involves other parties, and no sibling tool performs deletion.

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?

Gives clear conditions for when the call succeeds versus fails: only the creating account may delete, others get 404 (also when already deleted), and deals involving another party are refused with 409. No alternative sibling is named because none exists for deletion, so explicit when-not guidance without an alternative is the right level.

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