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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent), the description adds ownership verification, tenant_id requirement, return value {query_id, deleted}, idempotent deletion semantics, and authentication needs. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone don't provide.

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?

The description is somewhat long but every sentence adds critical information (ownership, idempotency, return, auth). It is well-structured with the main action first, followed by constraints and behavior. Minor redundancy could be trimmed but it remains efficient.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers the operation's functionality, edge cases (unknown/deleted/not-yours), return format, ownership rules, and authentication. For a simple delete tool with rich annotations, this is complete and self-contained.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully. It explains query_id as the identifier and clarifies that tenant_id must match the one used during registration, adding meaning beyond the raw schema types and defaults.

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 clearly states the tool deletes a standing disruption query by query_id, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_standing_queries and register_standing_query. The verb 'delete' and resource 'standing disruption query' are specific and 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?

It provides clear ownership and tenant_id prerequisites, and explains the idempotent behavior for unknown or not-yours ids. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the context makes it obvious this is for deletion after listing/registering. The description effectively guides when to use the tool.

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