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

The annotations already flag this as destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: deletion fails when tasks reference the status unless reassignToStatusId is supplied, and the last status on a project can never be deleted. These are important, non-obvious failure modes that help an agent avoid failed calls.

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?

A single sentence states the core action and the two most important behavioral constraints. It is front-loaded, free of fluff, and every clause earns its place.

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 destructive delete operation with complete schema coverage and destructive annotations, the description covers the critical call-affecting conditions: when it fails and when reassignToStatusId is needed. No additional information is required for an agent to decide whether the tool can be invoked correctly.

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 all three parameters are already documented in detail. The description mentions reassignToStatusId in the context of avoiding failure, but it does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. This matches the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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: 'Delete a custom status.' It is unambiguous about what is being acted on and is clearly distinct from sibling delete tools that target projects, comments, attachments, labels, or tasks.

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 useful usage context by explaining when the delete will fail and how reassignToStatusId can make it succeed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over an alternative or mention any when-not-to-use conditions, so the guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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