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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds real value on top: irreversibility ('Cannot be undone') and a required human confirmation step, which is the key behavioral trait an agent needs before invoking a delete.

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, zero waste. The destructive irreversibility warning is front-loaded right after the action statement.

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?

No output schema exists, but a delete tool's return is trivial; annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers all three parameters including idempotency retry semantics. The description supplies irreversibility and confirmation guidance, leaving little an agent needs missing.

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%, so ruleId, workspaceId, and idempotencyKey are all fully documented in the schema itself. The description only reiterates that ruleId comes from list_routing_rules, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. 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') plus the exact resource ('a rule'), and names list_routing_rules as the source of the identifier. An agent can distinguish this from create_routing_rule and update_routing_rule without opening any 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?

Gives a concrete precondition ('confirm with the user first') and routes the agent to list_routing_rules to obtain ruleId. It does not state explicit when-not conditions, but for an unambiguous delete tool the guidance is clear and actionable.

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