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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds the genuine new fact of the required role. However, it omits the two-call preview/confirm protocol that the schema's confirm_token encodes and says nothing about irreversibility — the most important behavioral context for a delete.

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 very short sentences are front-loaded well and waste little. But 'Two steps.' is an unexplained fragment that costs the reader more than it gives, and the whole definition is arguably under-specified rather than concise.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers identity, permission level, and lookup path. It does not surface the confirmation flow or the consequences of deletion, leaving the most decision-relevant behavior to be discovered in the schema, which is a real gap for this tool class.

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 67%: project_id and confirm_token are documented in-schema, step_id is only constrained by a UUID pattern. The description names neither parameter and adds no format or sourcing detail for step_id beyond the pointer to the list tool, so it does not compensate for the gap beyond baseline.

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?

Specific verb + resource + scope: 'Delete one step of the follow-up ladder' clearly separates it from dosai_update_followup_step and the other delete_* siblings. The dangling fragment 'Two steps.' is ambiguous (two-step confirmation? a two-step ladder?) and slightly muddies an otherwise crisp statement.

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?

It routes the agent to dosai_list_followup_steps to obtain step ids and states the permission floor ('Editor or above'), which is useful context. It never states when to prefer update_followup_step, when not to delete, or what happens to a ladder if its last step is removed.

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