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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explains the rationale for refusing finalized notes (client may have seen them, deletion would leave dangling copies). This adds meaningful behavioral context that the annotation alone does not convey.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then immediately states the critical constraint, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 one parameter and a destructive annotation, the description covers the essential behavioral constraints. It could potentially mention return values or side effects, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema description already provides the id format and an example (CN-DRAFT-2026-0001). The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already covers, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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), the target (draft credit note), and the identifier (draft id). It also differentiates from siblings by specifying that finalized notes are refused, which is a key distinction from other credit note operations.

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 gives a clear use case (entered wrongly) and explicitly states when it cannot be used (finalized notes). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient to guide the agent away from using this on finalized notes.

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