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

The annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds only a generic caution, without explaining the consequences of deletion (e.g., cascading effects, irreversibility) beyond the force_delete parameter hint.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the action and resource, with no unnecessary words.

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?

The description gives a basic warning but omits critical context such as potential data loss, dependency handling, or any confirmation steps. The force_delete parameter hints at dependencies, but the overall picture is incomplete for a destructive operation.

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?

Both parameters (schema_uuid and force_delete) have descriptions in the schema, providing 100% coverage. The description text itself does not elaborate further, but the schema is sufficiently clear, so the baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (schema), and it is distinct from other schema-related tools like schema_get, schema_update, and schema_validate.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as schema_update or schema_save. The phrase 'Use with caution' is a general warning, not a specific usage guideline.

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