delete_rate_limit

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: deletion takes effect 'immediately' on the active throttling policy, implying no soft-delete/undo and immediate impact on live traffic. It does not mention required permissions or whether rollback is possible.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the one caution that actually changes agent behavior. No boilerplate or repetition of name/title.

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?

With a single fully documented parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is nearly complete. The only missing piece is naming the exact tool (get_rate_limit) an agent should call to perform the recommended pre-delete inspection.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Rate-limit policy UUID to delete'), so the schema fully documents it. The description's 'by id' adds nothing beyond that; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Delete a rate-limit policy') plus the identifier key ('by id'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_rate_limit, update_rate_limit, list_rate_limits, and from delete_usage_limit which targets a different resource.

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 an explicit pre-condition ('inspect dependent callers and the full policy before deleting it'), which tells the agent to read first and delete second. It stops short of naming the specific read siblings (get_rate_limit, list_rate_limits) that would perform that inspection, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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