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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real value on top: 'Permanently', 'Irreversible', and the fact that the stream's configuration is destroyed alongside it — details an agent needs before calling and that the annotation alone does not convey.

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, zero waste, with the destructive/permanent nature front-loaded right after the purpose statement. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, and the underlying REST semantics. It is essentially complete; the only gap is the absence of guidance on alternatives such as stop_stream.

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 100% with a single documented 'stream' UUID parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the parameter (e.g., format, whether it accepts names or IDs only), so 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 (delete) and resource (stream), and scopes it further as 'and its configuration', which distinguishes it from sibling deletions like delete_media, delete_folder, and delete_tag. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 implies usage (permanent removal of a stream) but never states when to choose this over alternatives such as stop_stream, update_stream, or the other delete_* tools, nor does it name any prerequisite. Usage is inferable from the verb, which is the minimum viable level.

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