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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the parameter names — no info on irreversibility, permissions, or side effects like card reindexing.

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?

Very short and front-loaded with the operation, though the param listing reads as a compact dump rather than earned prose. No waste, but minimal substance.

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?

A destructive mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no usage guidance should do more: explain authorization, cascade effects, and when deletion is appropriate. Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the gaps elsewhere are significant.

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%, so the description carries the burden but only labels the params (id = program uuid, cardId = uuid). It clarifies id is a program UUID, but provides no constraint, format, or relationship detail beyond the schema's own types.

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) and resource (program info card), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like delete_program, delete_program_item, and delete_template_info_card. Lacks deeper scoping detail but the operation is 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?

No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives such as update_program_info_card or reorder_program_info_cards, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., ownership, published-state restrictions). Usage is only implied by the name.

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