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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so safety is largely covered; the description still adds real value with the guardrails (last-category prohibition, traced-plan prohibition) and the precondition that absent `moveSeatsTo` the category must be unused. It does not state whether the delete is reversible or what the response looks like, so it is strong but not complete.

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 compact segments — behavior, when-to-use, example — with the delete-and-move semantics front-loaded and zero filler. The terse "Never the last one or one from a traced plan" fragment reads as a deliberate constraint rather than sloppiness, and the inline JSON example substitutes for a paragraph of explanation.

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 3-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, preconditions, and the main branching parameter, which is what an agent needs to call it safely. The remaining gap is outcome reporting — whether blocked deletions return an error and what the caller gets back — which the description leaves implicit.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns the bump by clarifying what actually moves under `moveSeatsTo` (seats, tables, areas) and by supplying a worked example showing `categoryKey` alongside a `expectedUpdatedAt` value. It does not explain the optimistic-concurrency failure mode of `expectedUpdatedAt` beyond the example, keeping it below a 5.

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 first clause names a specific verb and resource ("Delete a category") and immediately explains the side effect of the optional `moveSeatsTo` path — seats, tables and areas relocating. That is enough for an agent to tell this apart from `delete_chart_zone`, `delete_chart_objects`, and `update_chart_categories` without opening their schemas.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ("Use when: a price level should go") with a concrete merge scenario, plus two hard exclusions — never the last category, never one from a traced plan. It stops short of naming the alternative for the rename/reorder case (`update_chart_categories`, `reorder_chart_categories`), so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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