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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: archived-but-unrestorable semantics, potential impact on dependent data, and the fact that the call is never retried. That is exactly the extra risk context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Front-loaded with the safety classification, then irreversibility, then side effects, then transport shape. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is duplicated from the schema.

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, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers the full decision surface: scope, reversibility, dependent-data risk, retry behavior, and endpoint. Nothing material 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (id, entity) are already documented with examples ('c_application') and a pointer to beaconcrm_list_record_types. The description adds only the URL template, which is marginal — baseline 3 applies.

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 ('delete ONE record') with an explicit cardinality constraint that separates it from create/update/upsert siblings. The endpoint mapping (DELETE /entity/{entity}/{id}) reinforces exactly what is acted on.

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 clear context ('ONE record', irreversible, related data may be affected) but does not name an alternative path — e.g., that update_record should be used to modify rather than delete-and-recreate. Usage is well framed but exclusions are implied rather than explicit.

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