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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes further: it states the action is irreversible ('Cannot be undone'), requires user confirmation, and demands a follow-up learn_brand_style call so the style is updated. This is rich behavioral context beyond what the structured fields 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 tight clauses front-loaded with the what, then the two modes, then the safety and follow-up. No filler, no repetition of the schema.

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 destructive tool with full annotation and schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, irreversibility, confirmation, and the required learn_brand_style follow-up. Nothing material is 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 the baseline is 3, and the description earns above it by tying 'id' to list_style_examples and explaining that 'all:true' deletes every example of a destination. It doesn't touch accountId/workspaceId/idempotencyKey, but those are well documented in the schema itself.

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 (delete) plus precise resource (one style example or every example of a destination), with the id source named (list_style_examples). It clearly separates the two operating modes and reads as the delete counterpart to add_style_examples/list_style_examples, so an agent can pick it out of the crowded delete_* sibling set.

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?

Explicit when-to-use for both modes (single id from list_style_examples, or all:true for a whole destination) and a hard precondition ('confirm with the user first'). It also names the required follow-up (call learn_brand_style) so the agent knows the full sequence, not just the call.

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