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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-annotated behavioral fact: existing job copies are preserved after deletion, which is the kind of consequence information an agent needs. It omits auth requirements and what exactly is destroyed beyond the starter itself.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste; the resource is stated first and the retention caveat follows. It is appropriately sized for a delete action, though it leaves little room to carry the missing context.

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 mutation with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description does the minimum: it names the target and one retention guarantee. It does not cover the idempotency/request-id mechanics or the full destruction scope, so it is adequate but clearly incomplete.

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 0% with three parameters, and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. The required starter_id is only obliquely implied by 'starter'; request_id and idempotency_key are completely undocumented in both schema and description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Delete an organization starter'), which clearly separates it from read/list/create siblings such as yardstick_automation_starters_create and _list. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the other mutation sibling (_apply) or the rules_delete family, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The clause 'while keeping existing job copies' hints at the effect versus a fuller removal but does not tell the agent when to choose this tool over starters_apply or rules_delete.

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