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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's additional value is in emphasizing that deletion is permanent and affects the LIVE public status page. This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying the real-world consequence and irreversibility.

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?

One focused sentence plus the API endpoint. The destructive action is front-loaded ('DELETES... permanently removes'), making the tool's core behavior immediately visible with no filler.

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 two-parameter delete tool with destructiveHint annotation and no output schema, this description covers the essential context: what is deleted, where, and that the deletion is permanent. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 are already documented. The description adds the endpoint path showing subdomain and incident_id usage, but it does not enrich parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('DELETES') and resource ('incident') and adds critical scope ('from the LIVE public status page'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like statuspal_create_incident, statuspal_update_incident, and statuspal_get_incident by indicating a destructive delete operation.

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 use case clear: use this tool when an incident must be removed from the public status page. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the delete operation is unambiguous and the 'permanently removes' wording signals when not to use it casually.

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