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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds the draft-version constraint, which is useful. However, it does not disclose that deleting the last rule in a version requires confirmation, nor does it explain the role of the 'force' parameter or any side effects. The description adds some value but misses important behavioral nuances.

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, concise sentence that is entirely front-loaded with the action and the draft-version constraint. There is no fluff, and every word earns its place. It is effectively sized for a simple delete operation.

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?

The description covers the core requirement (deleting from a draft version) but omits the special behavior around the 'force' parameter—specifically, that deleting the last rule requires confirmation unless force is set to true. With no output schema and a special-case parameter, this missing context could lead to incorrect calls. The annotations cover the destructive nature, so the description is adequate but not complete.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters documented. The tool description provides no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema covers all parameters and the description adds no extra meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('rule') and specifies the scope ('from a DRAFT version'), which clearly distinguishes it from other rule operations like create, update, toggle, and reorder. The draft-version constraint is a critical differentiator and is front and center.

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 provides clear context by restricting the operation to DRAFT versions, implicitly telling the agent when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., using lexq_rules_toggle to disable a rule instead of deleting it) or state that it should not be used on published versions. It gives clear usage context but no explicit exclusions.

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