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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds a workspace-scoping claim, but that claim references a 'denormalised projectId' that is not a parameter in the schema, which is more confusing than clarifying, and it never states whether the deletion is permanent (no restore_story_relation sibling exists).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then scope, then the discovery hint. Zero padding, though the middle sentence about projectId adds ambiguity rather than information.

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 whose annotations already convey destructiveness and idempotency, the description covers purpose, scoping and id discovery. The unverifiable projectId remark is the only loose end, and no output schema or return-value explanation is needed here.

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 already says 'Relation UUID', so the description only needs to add provenance. It does that usefully by naming list_story_relations as the source of the id, which is the baseline-3 level of added value.

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 story relation by id'), which is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like create_story_relation and delete_cross_link. It does not explicitly contrast with delete_cross_link, so it stops just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 points to stride.list_story_relations as the way to obtain a valid relation id, which is actionable pre-call guidance. It gives no 'when not to use' condition or note on the absence of an undo/restore counterpart.

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