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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false and openWorld=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds value the annotations cannot: the permission tier required and the existence of a two-step confirmation, which prepares the agent for the confirm_token round-trip. It stops short of saying the deletion is permanent/irreversible and what related data changes.

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 front-loaded fragments with zero filler: action, alternative, flow length, permission. Each sentence carries a distinct fact the agent needs.

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 3-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers alternative action, prerequisites and the two-step confirmation that pairs with confirm_token. Missing only explicit permanence/irreversibility and any note on what happens to rule run history.

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, while rule_id has only a UUID pattern and no prose. The description adds little beyond 'one rule' (singularity), so this is a baseline 3 with a small residual gap on rule_id.

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 (delete) and resource (one rule), and enumerates the rule kinds affected (keyword reply, comment reply), which lets an agent separate it from the many other destructive siblings. The scope is unambiguously single-item.

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 pause case to dosai_set_rule_active, which is the key when-not-to-use decision for a rule. It also sets a prerequisite (Editor or above) and flags the two-step flow, so the agent knows the sequence before calling.

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