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

The annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific object of destruction ('a specific push token'), but does not disclose extra behavioral details like irreversibility, auth requirements, or cascading effects. It does not contradict the 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning: 'Delete', 'specific', 'push token', and 'for a user' together define the tool's purpose clearly.

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 two-parameter destructive operation, the description, combined with full schema documentation and the annotations coverage, gives the agent enough to invoke the tool correctly. A brief note about absence behavior when the token does not exist would improve completeness, but it is not essential 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions ('The token identifier to delete' and 'The user ID'). The description adds no additional semantic nuance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Delete') and a specific resource ('a specific push token for a user'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_user_push_tokens or create_or_replace_user_push_token. It is not a tautology and immediately conveys the tool's exact operation.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as patch_user_token, create_or_replace_user_push_token, or bulk_add_user_tokens. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context without explicit routing or exclusions.

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