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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the bare fact of deletion—no mention of permanence, cascading effects, or any side effects. While this does not contradict the annotations, it also provides no value beyond what is already structured. Given the annotations exist, the description is minimally acceptable but does not enhance transparency.

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, short sentence that front-loads the core action. It is appropriately sized for a generic delete operation—no fluff or unnecessary elaboration. It is concise and well-structured, though its brevity comes at the cost of missing usage and behavioral nuance, which are addressed elsewhere in the evaluation.

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 delete tool with three well-documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It lacks explicit mention of return values or confirmation behavior, and it does not clarify the irreversibility beyond the destructiveHint annotation. Since the operation is simple and the schema/annotations cover most context, a score of 3 reflects that it meets the minimum needs but leaves some details 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning every parameter (uuid, tenant, object_type) is already documented in the schema. The description itself mentions no parameters and adds no semantic enrichment beyond the schema. Per the calibration, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully describes parameters and the description offers no extra insight.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Delete an object from the current domain.' It is unambiguous about the core action, and the generic CRUD nature is evident from the tool name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like schema_delete, relying on the name prefix 'crud_' to imply object-level deletion. The phrase 'current domain' provides some scope but remains somewhat vague. Overall, it is a clear, albeit generic, purpose statement.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as crud_update or schema_delete. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only implicit hint is the tool name and generic object deletion scope, but the description itself provides no explicit routing or decision support for an agent choosing among similar operations.

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