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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds material context beyond them: the deletion is irreversible, it spans all versions, and existing datafiles/workflows retain dangling references and silently skip validation. That downstream side effect is exactly the kind of consequence an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the irreversibility warning is front-loaded right after the action statement. The dangling-reference caveat earns its place because it is non-obvious behavior.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations plus description together cover safety, scope, and side effects. The only gap is whether deletion fails or proceeds when resources are bound, which the description only partially answers with 'keep the dangling reference'.

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?

The single schema_id parameter is fully documented in the schema itself (100% coverage), and the description adds nothing about its format or where to obtain it. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

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?

Specific verb (permanently delete) plus the resource (schema) and the exact scope (all its versions). This is clearly separable from siblings like update_schema, unpublish_schema, and delete_datafile without opening any 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?

The description makes the destructive intent obvious, so the implied usage is real deletion rather than unpublishing. But it never names an alternative (unpublish_schema vs delete_schema, or update_schema for changes), so the agent must infer the when/when-not conditions.

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