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

Annotations already signal destructive intent, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: system facts are excluded, rule-referenced facts trigger a specific error code FD-006, and the error reports the count of references. This gives the agent actionable knowledge about failure modes and preconditions.

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?

Three tight sentences each add unique value: the core operation, the excluded cases, and the required remediation step. No filler or repetition exists, and the most important behavioral constraint is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter destructive operation with a clear schema and strong annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs: the action, the key failure cases, the error code, and the required precondition. Complexity is low, and no output schema exists to explain, so nothing essential is missing.

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 the single parameter factId is already described as 'Fact definition ID' with a UUID format. The description does not add new parameter-level detail, but none is necessary given the complete schema coverage. This matches the baseline for schema-heavy parameter documentation.

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 the specific action and resource: 'Delete a fact definition.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lexq_facts_create, lexq_facts_update, and lexq_facts_list. The title and description align unambiguously.

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?

The description gives explicit when-not conditions: system facts cannot be deleted, and facts referenced by any rule cannot be deleted. It also provides a clear prerequisite ('Remove the references first'), indicating the proper sequence before calling. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools by identifier or explicitly state when this tool is the preferred choice.

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