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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, yet the description adds genuinely new context: the deletion is permanent, probe history is destroyed alongside the registration, admin request logs are retained for up to 30 days, and an omitted confirm performs no action. That is exactly the destructive/irreversibility detail the annotations cannot 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 sentences: the destructive scope leads, the retention caveat follows, and the confirmation requirement closes. No filler and every sentence adds a distinct fact.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers destruction scope, retention, and the confirm gate. It is only slightly short on auth/permission expectations for api_key, which is a required parameter.

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 full burden. It does explain the confirm parameter's semantics (must be true; omission = no action), but api_key and agent_id are never described, leaving two of three parameters with no meaning beyond their names.

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 (permanently remove) plus the exact resources destroyed: the owned registration and its probe history. This distinguishes it cleanly from register_agent_health, update_agent_health, and agent_health_status among its siblings.

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?

Gives a usage condition ('when the operator requests it') and a hard prerequisite ('Requires confirm=true after reviewing the effect'), and clarifies that omitting confirmation is a no-op. It stops short of naming any alternative tool or when-not-to-use case, but the gating condition is clear.

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