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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description's only added context is 'Use with caution,' which merely restates destructiveHint; it does not explain what data is lost, whether dependent resources cascade or block deletion, or whether deletion is permanent. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded, so nothing is buried. However, the second sentence ('Use with caution') is low-value filler that consumes space without earning it.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description omits the important operational details an agent needs: what happens to dependent schemas, whether deletion is irreversible, and how failures without force_delete manifest. The schema covers parameters, but the behavioral context around a destructive operation is thin.

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 100%, so both schema_uuid and force_delete are already documented, including the default value for force_delete. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 schema from the domain'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from read-oriented siblings like schema_get and schema_list. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from schema_update or schema_save, but the destructive verb makes the intent clear.

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?

'Use with caution' is a generic warning rather than guidance on when to choose this tool over schema_update or when not to delete. Nothing tells the agent how force_delete changes the decision or what preconditions (e.g., dependencies) should trigger caution, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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