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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description could have coasted; instead it adds irreversibility ('Cannot be undone') and, importantly, the non-obvious fact that edge caches keep serving the public URL until s_maxage_seconds expires. That cache-staleness caveat is a genuine behavioral disclosure unavailable from any structured field.

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 short sentences, zero waste, and the irreversible/cache caveats are front-loaded right after the core action. Each sentence carries distinct information that an agent needs before calling it.

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?

The tool has an output schema and fully annotated safety profile, and the description covers everything left: permanence, list visibility, non-recoverability, and cache propagation lag. Nothing an agent needs in order to call 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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents endpoint_id ('the endpoint id to delete'). The description adds nothing parameter-specific, which is acceptable but deserves only baseline credit.

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 a dynamic endpoint') and immediately contrasts it with the nearest alternative operation, unpublish. An agent can distinguish it from unpublish_dynamic_endpoint and delete_dynamic_endpoint's other siblings without opening a schema.

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 names the alternative operation ('Unlike unpublish, this removes the resource entirely') and gives the observable consequence ('no longer appears in list_dynamic_endpoints'), which effectively communicates when to pick this over unpublish. It stops short of stating a positive selection criterion such as 'use only when you are sure the endpoint will never be needed', so not a 5.

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