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

Even though annotations already mark this as destructive, idempotent, and not read-only, the description adds crucial domain behavior: linked workspaces are automatically unlinked and their data is never deleted. It also states the required permission ('company_context:write'), which is not captured by 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?

The description is four tight sentences with no filler, and it leads with the core action before covering usage constraints, cascade behavior, and permissions. Every sentence carries operational information.

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, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key risks and side effects: cascade unlinking, data preservation, permission requirements, and the alternative detachment tool. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, and the single parameter is documented in the schema as a UUID from list_companies. The description adds 'by id' but no additional format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete ... companies') and constrains it by id. It also explicitly distinguishes the operation from the sibling tool unlink_workspace_company, so an agent can identify the correct tool without opening sibling schemas.

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 an explicit use condition ('only when the user asks to remove that client or company') and names the alternative tool for detaching a single workspace. The when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance is clear and actionable.

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