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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds important context: permanence ('Irreversible') and the conditional logic based on ticket sales, which goes well beyond the annotation alone.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with a dash and semicolon for structure. Every word is necessary; no wasted text. It efficiently conveys action, condition, and requirements.

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?

Given no output schema and simple destructive action, the description covers the core behavior, condition, and prerequisites. However, it's slightly ambiguous whether the tool automatically archives if tickets are sold or errors out. This is a minor gap in a otherwise complete description.

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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in input schema). The description only says 'Requires event_id + tier_id', which adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names. For a delete tool, the purpose of these parameters is clear from context, but the description should explain that tier_id identifies the ticket tier within the event.

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 clearly states the action ('Permanently delete a ticket tier') and includes a conditional qualifier ('only if no tickets were sold') that distinguishes it from related tools like archive_ticket_tier. It also specifies required parameters and authorization.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool vs an alternative ('only if no tickets were sold, otherwise archive it'), and states prerequisites (event_id, tier_id, must be host). No ambiguity.

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