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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new facts: the deletion cascades to text segment connections, and the operation is never automatically retried. Those are the details an agent needs before committing to an irreversible call, though permission requirements and error behavior remain unstated.

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 most decision-relevant flags ('WRITE, DESTRUCTIVE'), followed by the concrete effect and then the endpoint. Very little waste, though the 'WRITE, DESTRUCTIVE' prefix partially duplicates annotation hints and the telegraphic phrasing is slightly clipped.

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 simple three-parameter delete with no output schema, the description covers the effect, cascade consequence, retry behavior, and target endpoint. Annotations carry the safety profile, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 all three parameters (workspace_url, project_url, image_id) are already fully documented including examples and sourcing hints. The description only surfaces image_id via the URL template and adds no format or validation meaning beyond the schema.

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 context image' — and adds the consequential scope detail that it also removes 'its connections to text segments'. The endpoint path confirms the object being deleted, so an agent can distinguish this from sibling lingohub_delete_resource at a glance.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this to remove a context image, but the description never says when to prefer it over alternatives (e.g., delete_resource) or what prerequisites apply. The 'Never retried' note is behavioral, not usage routing.

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