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

Although annotations already mark destructiveHint: true, the description adds crucial behavioral details: stops running instances, releases public HTTPS URL, erases volumes, discards revisions, and confirms irreversibility. This goes far beyond the annotation's binary signal.

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: first states the action and immediate irreversibility, second lists all consequences and offers a safer alternative. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what happens, why it matters, and how to avoid unwanted deletion. No gaps remain for the agent to infer.

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 already describes the only parameter 'id' as 'Service ID (from scalix_run_list)' with 100% coverage. The description adds no new param-specific semantics, but none are needed given the simple, well-documented schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Permanently delete a Scalix Run service', using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating that scalix_run_rollback cannot undo it and scalix_run_scale is the alternative for pausing.

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 when-to-use guidance (permanent deletion) and an explicit alternative for a common use case: 'To stop paying for an idle service without losing it, set min_instances to 0 with scalix_run_scale instead.' This is exemplary usage direction.

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