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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful context beyond those flags: the deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, and runs against the song's Mureka account.

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?

The description is three tightly packed sentences: the core action and permanence warning come first, followed by routing alternatives and the underlying endpoint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 delete tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers permanence, reversibility, account scope, and sibling alternatives. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.

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%, and the sole song_id parameter is fully documented in the schema including its expected format and source. The description adds no extra syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Permanently delete one song') and scopes it to the Mureka account. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from adjacent delete tools (mureka_delete_character, mureka_delete_file, mureka_delete_vocal), so an agent can select it without opening schemas.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool (to delete a song) and routes some non-song deletions to alternative tools. It does not cover every sibling delete tool (e.g., mureka_delete_speech, mureka_delete_voice), but the primary routing guidance is explicit and useful.

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