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. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that — the required OAuth scope and role — which is exactly the kind of authorization detail an agent needs before calling. It stops short of saying the deletion is permanent or what happens when the login does not exist.

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?

Two short sentences, action first and prerequisites second, with no redundant restatement of the title or schema. Every clause carries 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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the definition covers the essentials plus auth. It omits what an agent would want for a destructive operation: whether deletion is recoverable and the result when the login is absent.

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%, with both `login` (id or exact name from list_logins) and `project` (slug or id) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or resolution detail beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a saved login") that an agent can distinguish from create_login, update_login, get_login, and list_logins by name alone. It does not explicitly name a sibling or spell out how the deletion scope differs from, say, delete_secret or delete_field, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description supplies prerequisites (logins:write scope and editor role) but never states when to reach for this tool versus update_login or get_login, nor what to do if the login should be removed from a project instead. Usage is implied by the name rather than guided.

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