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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: irreversibility, the refusal condition for app-attached resources, that the error response names the offending apps, that removal happens asynchronously in the provider, and that destroying an already-removing resource is a silent no-op. It also discloses the auth prerequisite ('Requires connecting a Valet account').

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 destructive action and the confirmation requirement before any edge cases. Every sentence carries operational information, though the idempotency sentence partially restates the idempotentHint annotation and the auth note reads as a trailing addendum, so it is dense rather than perfectly trimmed.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is destroyed, confirmation requirement, the refusal/error shape (app names), the required remediation tool, async semantics, repeat-call behavior, and auth. Nothing material is left implicit.

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 the schema already documents both `org_name` (including the omit-to-use-default behavior) and the required `resource` name. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Destroy a resource and all of its data') and immediately scopes what 'all its data' means ('every table and row in a database'). This distinguishes it from the many sibling destroy_* tools (destroy_channel, destroy_service, destroy_connector, destroy_memory) without the agent needing to open any schema.

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 states when to use it (resource destruction), an explicit prerequisite ('confirm with the user first'), and a concrete alternative flow when the precondition fails: if the resource is attached to an app the call is refused and the agent should use detach_resource first, then retry. That is when/when-not/alternative all in one place.

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