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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, and the description still adds consequences an agent could not infer: billed resources are released ('billing stops') while 'target machines are not touched'. Those are exactly the side-effect boundaries that matter before an irreversible call.

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 dense sentence that leads with the action, then the side effects, then the safety instruction and scope. Every clause carries distinct information; nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers impact, confirmation, and permission scope. It doesn't say what happens to in-flight traffic or what errors arise if the balancer is still referenced, but nothing essential to calling it 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 the schema's own description of 'lb' already tells the agent where ids come from (list_load_balancers or create_load_balancer). The tool description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource and enumerates what disappears with it: the load balancer, its address, and its configuration. That level of detail separates it cleanly from neighbouring delete_* tools such as delete_vpc or delete_firewall.

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?

'Ask the user first' gives an explicit confirmation precondition, and 'Scope: vms.destroy' names the permission needed to proceed. It doesn't point to any alternative or non-destructive path, but for a pure deletion tool there may be none worth naming.

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