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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description adds valuable specifics: it permanently removes both the registration and probe history, and admin request logs are retained for up to 30 days. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the exact scope and retention behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no unnecessary filler. The most important information—permanent deletion and retention of admin logs—is front-loaded and clearly stated.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential details: what is deleted, permanence, and log retention. It does not mention error cases or idempotency, but the presence of an output schema and the clarity of the operation make this a reasonably complete description.

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 bears the burden of explaining parameters. It refers to 'owned registration' and 'operator', which hints at authorization, but it never explicitly defines what agent_id or api_key mean or how they are used. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 action: 'Permanently remove an owned registration and probe history' with a specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like register_agent_health, update_agent_health, and agent_health_status.

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?

The phrase 'when the operator requests it' gives clear context for when deletion is appropriate. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the delete-vs-register/update/status distinction is clear from the description and tool name.

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