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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing cache behavior the schema cannot express: 'Nothing purges cached copies: the edge can keep serving its copy of the public URL until the endpoint's s_maxage_seconds run out' — a genuinely non-obvious propagation detail for a destructive operation.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the sibling contrast before the edge-case caveat. No filler; every sentence (permanence, sibling contrast, irreversibility, cache lag) carries distinct information.

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 one-param tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it does, how it differs from unpublish, that it is irreversible, and the caching caveat.

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 (endpoint_id) at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format, prefix, or sourcing guidance beyond what the schema provides, giving the expected baseline of 3.

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+resource ('Permanently delete a dynamic endpoint') and immediately distinguishes it from the closest sibling: 'Unlike unpublish, this removes the resource entirely — it no longer appears in list_dynamic_endpoints.' An agent can differentiate delete_dynamic_endpoint from unpublish_dynamic_endpoint without opening either 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?

Names the alternative (unpublish) and the distinguishing behavior (full removal vs. keeping the resource), plus the irreversibility signal 'Cannot be undone.' This gives strong context for choosing between the two, though it never states an explicit 'use this when you intend irreversible removal / do not use if you may want to restore.'

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