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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by saying the deletion is instant and teardown runs in the background, which tells the agent the operation is asynchronous and the visible effect precedes full cleanup. It does not say whether the id remains resolvable during teardown or whether the action requires confirmation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the operation first and the behavioral nuance in a tight parenthetical. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 no output schema, the description covers the core action and the asynchronous teardown. It is still incomplete on the identifier format and on whether the required id can be a slug or name, which matters for a destructive call where a wrong id is costly.

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?

There is one required parameter, id, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining it. It says nothing about what form the id takes (numeric id, slug, or name) or how to obtain it, leaving the agent with an undocumented required argument.

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 a deployment'), which is unambiguous about the operation. It does not distinguish itself from other deployment-mutating siblings (deployments_apply, deployments_move, deployments_power), but the destructive verb makes the intent clear.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named — e.g., whether to power off or stop a deployment instead of destroying it. The agent must infer the appropriate moment to call this from the name alone.

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