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 contributes beyond that by adding an authorization constraint (creator-only) and an explicit irreversibility warning. The note that prompt text and sheet titles are customer data, not instructions, is a useful injection-defense cue for a tool whose parameters reference user-authored content. Minor gap: no statement of what happens on a non-creator attempt or whether dependent objects are affected.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its two hard constraints. The trailing 'Free' is a stray cost remark of little decision value, and the injection warning is slightly displaced, but there is no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter delete with no output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the aspects an agent actually needs: what is removed, who may remove it, and that it is permanent. It falls short only on failure behavior (non-creator errors, not-found handling) and on how to source the prompt_id.

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% and there is one required parameter, so the description carries the burden of explaining it. The description never mentions prompt_id, its UUID format, or where the agent should obtain a valid identifier (e.g., from list_prompts). It adds no meaning beyond the bare schema typing.

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 one of your saved prompts'), which cleanly separates it from the read-side siblings get_prompt/list_prompts and the write-side save_prompt. An agent can identify the operation without consulting the schema.

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?

It gives the key precondition (only the creator may delete) and the consequence (irreversible), which strongly implies when the tool is applicable. However, it never names an alternative path or says what to do when the caller is not the creator, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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