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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the cascade: referencing auto-review rules lose that condition and empty rules are deleted, mirroring app behavior. The mention of rulesTouched also hints at side-effect reporting. It does not state error behavior when the form is live (rejection vs. no-op), leaving one meaningful gap.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraint before the cascade detail. 'Exactly like the app' is slightly informal but conveys that the behavior matches the UI, which is useful. No filler.

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?

With no output schema and only two required params, the description covers what an agent actually needs: the precondition, the destructive cascade, and the meaning of the rulesTouched field. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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%, and both parameters carry their own descriptions including the 'Never invent ids' warning, so the description adds nothing about parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work.

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 ('Deletes a screening form question'), which cleanly separates it from sibling deletions like deleteStep, deleteTask, and deleteApplicantRule. The added precondition sharpens rather than muddies the purpose.

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 a hard usage boundary: only usable before the form is live, which is the decisive gating condition an agent needs. It does not explicitly point to updateScreeningQuestion or configureScreening as the alternative when the form is already live, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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