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

Goes far beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), name reuse behavior, visibility change in lexq_groups_list, the full set of conflicting operations returning 409 P-059, audit retention rules, and the 30-day permanent-deletion window.

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 core action, then the blocking precondition, then consequences and error codes. Dense but every sentence carries distinct operational information; nothing is redundant or padding.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, prerequisites, post-conditions, error semantics, and retention behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Only one parameter (groupId) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents it as a UUID with a strict pattern. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 per the high-coverage rule.

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+resource ('Delete (archive) a policy group') with the parenthetical clarifying the actual semantics (archive, not hard delete). Clearly distinguishable from siblings like lexq_groups_update or lexq_groups_reorder.

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 states the precondition that blocks deletion (deployed groups, P-020) and names the sibling tool to call first (lexq_deploy_undeploy), including the side effect that undeploying also ends a running A/B test. Enumerates the operations that will fail afterwards with 409 P-059.

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