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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing a two-step confirmation workflow and a role requirement, which are not in the annotations. It stops short of saying whether the deletion is reversible or what happens to dependent runs, so it is not a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the alternative and preconditions. The fragment style ('Two steps. Editor or above.') is efficient but slightly telegraphic, leaving the confirmation mechanic to be inferred from the schema.

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 operation the description supplies the alternative action, the permission level, and a hint at the confirmation flow, while annotations and the schema cover the rest. No output schema exists, but the confirmation-token step means return values are described well enough in the schema. Missing only a note on reversibility/cascade effects.

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%: project_id and function_id already reference the listing tools, and confirm_token is documented in detail including the 'leave empty first call' protocol. The description's 'Two steps' only points back at confirm_token without adding syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 one function of the bot') and enumerates the concrete function types (notification, booking, table, integration), so the agent knows exactly what object is being removed. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'set_function_active' immediately, preventing confusion with the pause operation.

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 routes the agent away from this tool when the goal is pausing ('To pause instead, use dosai_set_function_active'), and adds a permission gate ('Editor or above') that determines whether the call is even permissible. Both the alternative and the precondition are named explicitly.

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