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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description still adds real context beyond that: irreversibility ('Cannot be undone'), a required user-confirmation step, and the downstream effect of stopping automations that send the resource.

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 filler, and the ordering is well chosen: what it deletes, what it affects, then the irreversible-action warning. Each sentence carries distinct 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 single-target delete with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description plus schema covers everything an agent needs to call it safely. The only residual note is that the schema's idempotencyKey retry mechanism sits slightly at odds with idempotentHint=false, which the description does not reconcile.

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% – resourceId's origin, workspaceId's default, and the full idempotencyKey retry semantics are all documented in the schema. The description repeats the list_dm_resources origin of resourceId but adds nothing new about the other two parameters, 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 deliverable') and identifies the source of the required ID (list_dm_resources), which separates it cleanly from create_dm_resource/update_dm_resource by verb. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('confirm with the user first') and signals the consequence that makes deletion a deliberate choice ('Automations that send it stop having it'), implying when this is the right call. It does not state when NOT to delete or point to a non-destructive alternative such as update_dm_resource.

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