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

Goes well past destructiveHint=true: it discloses what is destroyed (versions, enrollments, analytics), the immediate side effect on enrolled contacts, what survives (already-sent emails), and irreversibility. That is exactly the information an agent needs before committing to an irreversible mutation.

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: destruction scope first, then the immediate contact effect, then what is retained and the safer alternative. No filler, and the most consequential facts are front-loaded.

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 destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly and safely, including the escape hatch to archiveAutomation.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already carries the id format (aut_...) and the discovery path via listAutomations. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Delete an automation') with the scope of the deletion spelled out (versions, enrollments, numbers). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the archive path, so an agent can tell it apart from archiveAutomation and updateAutomation without further reading.

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?

Names the alternative ('use archiveAutomation') and gives the exact condition that selects it ('to retire one and keep its history'). It also rules out misuse by stating the operation cannot be undone, so the when-not is implicit but clear.

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