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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: what destruction concretely causes (Valet stops sending release files to the checker's URL), the user-confirmation requirement, the policy-reference refusal and its error payload, and the auth prerequisite ('Requires connecting a Valet account'). Only the 'already gone changes nothing' sentence largely restates idempotentHint.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its direct effect, then layered with confirmation, refusal handling, idempotency, and auth. Six sentences is a bit long, and the idempotency sentence overlaps with the annotation, but each other sentence carries distinct 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by covering the side effect, the refusal/error behavior with named policies, the user-confirmation requirement, and the account prerequisite. An agent has everything needed to call this destructive tool safely and correctly.

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 parameters (checker with its org:snyk or bare-name format, and optional org_name with its default) are already fully documented. The description's lone contribution is 'by name', which adds nothing 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 (destroy), resource (checker), and ownership scope (an organization's own checkers) by name. This clearly separates it from sibling destroy_* tools such as destroy_policy and destroy_resource, which target different resources.

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?

Explicitly instructs to confirm with the user first, and explains the refusal case with its remedy: a checker named by a release policy is refused, so destroy_policy first or repoint with set_policy. It also carves out the no-op case for an already-deleted checker, so the agent knows when this call is pointless.

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