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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the description's job is added context — and it delivers: billing stops, backups persist for 7 days and are restorable, and deletion is refused if a linked fork depends on the database. These are non-obvious side effects and failure modes that no annotation or schema field conveys.

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?

Four short clauses with zero filler, and the highest-stakes information (destructive scope, ask-user-first, confirmation requirement) is front-loaded. Nothing repeats the annotations verbatim and nothing could be cut without losing a distinct fact.

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, yet the description covers consequences, retention window, recovery path, blocking condition, and confirmation semantics for a two-parameter destructive tool. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this safely is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented in-schema, so baseline is 3. The description restates the confirm_name requirement and the database-id provenance without adding format, syntax, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema already says.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('DELETES the database and its data') plus a consequence ('billing stops'), and the trailing scope ('vms.destroy') pins the exact operation. An agent can distinguish this from destroy_vm, delete_logical_database, or detach_database_fork without opening any schema.

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 an explicit precondition ('Ask the user first'), an explicit when-not ('Refused while a linked fork depends on it'), and a named recovery alternative ('restore_database can bring it back meanwhile'). The agent knows both when to call it and what to do instead when blocked.

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