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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent, but the description adds critical context: permanent deletion with no undo/trash, downstream effect on match_procedures, return value, and unknown-UUID error behavior. It enhances rather than contradicts 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?

Front-loads the destructive nature and irreversible consequence, then provides alternatives and parameter guidance. Every sentence adds useful information without bloat.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description includes the return shape ({"deleted": true}) and the not-found error case. Combined with annotations and clear parameter provenance, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single proc_id parameter. It specifies the UUID format and where to obtain it (get_procedure, match_procedures, list_procedures), which is meaningful beyond the bare 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 ("Permanently delete one stored procedure and its steps") and clearly distinguishes the action from alternatives. The agent can tell exactly what this tool does.

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?

Explicitly states intended use ("procedures that are wrong or obsolete") and names alternatives with conditions: update_procedure for fixes, record_procedure_usage with success=False for intermittent failures, and get_procedure for inspection. This is strong routing guidance.

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