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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the specific failure mode (409 on active or paused enrollments), the remediation (pause and drain first), exactly what is destroyed (steps and draft state), and irreversibility.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by usage, the blocking condition, and side effects. 'Permanently' and 'This action is irreversible' are mildly redundant, which keeps this just short of a 5.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers action, usage trigger, blocking precondition, remediation, and blast radius. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents sequence_id as a UUID. The description echoes the UUID requirement but adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Permanently delete an automation sequence') and identifies the resource by UUID. The clause about steps being removed distinguishes it from the sibling meisa_delete_sequence_step, which deletes a single step rather than the whole sequence.

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 an explicit when: 'when the user wants to clean up unused or empty sequences.' It also gives the when-not and the alternative path: deletion fails with 409 when enrollments exist, and the agent is told to pause the sequence and drain enrollments first. That is a full routing instruction.

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