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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral context the agent would otherwise lack: the days affected by the deleted row fall back to the previous row or to no price, and the change alters historical pricing. The permission requirement is also disclosed. Slightly short of 5 because it doesn't say whether the deletion is reversible or what a failure on a bad id returns.

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 sentences ordered by importance: what it removes and by which id, the downstream consequence, then the alternative and permission gate. No redundant wording; every clause carries 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-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, id source, side effects on neighbouring rows, the correct alternative, and access restrictions. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already states the id comes from list_machine_prices, so the description only restates that plus the 'entered by mistake' rationale. No additional format, validation, or edge-case detail on the id beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Remove one row') and resource ('the machines' price list'), and disambiguates from the two related siblings by naming list_machine_prices as the id source and set_machine_price as the different operation. An agent can distinguish this from set_machine_price without opening either 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?

Explicitly frames the intent ('a price entered by mistake') and routes to the alternative with a condition: to change a price from a day on, use set_machine_price so history is preserved. It also states the access restriction (owner and administrators only), which is a prerequisite for calling it.

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