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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: irreversible ('There is no undo'), the exact set of destroyed children, the authorization model including the grant-token nuance, and what the reply contains. This is precisely the context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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, then permissions, then irreversibility, then response — a sensible order. It is dense rather than padded, though the final sentence ('Not the released envelope: the contract has no delete...') is convoluted and costs more parsing than it earns.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format needn't be spelled out, and the description still adds what the response names. Authorization and destruction are fully covered. Only the minor unexplained designId format keeps it from a 5.

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 50%: the token parameter is documented in-schema, but designId has no schema description. The description implies designId is 'a design you own' but adds no format or lookup guidance, and says nothing about token usage beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 for partial coverage with no meaningful compensation.

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 and resource ('Delete a design') and immediately enumerates the cascade (history, access list, overlay, discussion), so the agent knows the blast radius differs from rename_design or move_design_home. The ownership clause further narrows scope of what 'a design' means.

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?

Gives explicit who-may conditions (owner only, not editor/viewer/write-grant holder) and a positive use case (a session cleaning up designs it made). It does not name an alternative tool or say when to prefer rename/move/share instead, so it stops short of full when-vs-what guidance.

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