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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context by explicitly stating the operation is 'Irreversible' and naming the underlying API endpoint. It does not cover auth requirements or response format, but the safety profile is well communicated.

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 short sentences with zero waste: the action and irreversibility are front-loaded, followed by the use case and API mapping. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with complete schema coverage and a destructiveHint annotation, the description supplies the key missing behavioral fact (irreversibility) and an endpoint reference. It is complete enough to invoke safely, with only minor room for auth or rate-limit notes.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as 'The response to delete.' The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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 survey response') with clear scope ('one'). It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like formbricks_get_response and formbricks_list_responses.

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 concrete when-to-use condition ('use it to honour a data-deletion request') but does not name alternatives or explicit when-not conditions. For a single-purpose destructive tool with no competing sibling, this is adequate context.

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