Delete one flood observation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the non-obvious cascade that associated photos are also destroyed, plus the exact error semantics (404 on a missing fid rather than a silent success). It stops short of mentioning permission requirements or any partial-failure 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 tight sentences: the destructive effect and irreversibility are front-loaded, then the endpoint and error contract follow. No filler and nothing repeated from annotations or schema.

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 not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description closes the remaining gaps (cascade, irreversibility, 404 behavior) for a 3-parameter destructive tool; only auth/permission context is absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds value by spelling out the resource path template, showing how project_id, layer_id, and fid map into the URL hierarchy and confirming fid identifies a single observation.

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 precise verb (delete) and resource (one flood observation), plus the cascading scope of deleting its photos. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_observation, list_observations, and set_observation_exclusion without opening any schema.

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 description implies usage through the destructive verb and the 'cannot be undone' warning, but it never states when to choose deletion over an alternative such as hiding the observation via set_observation_exclusion. No prerequisites or exclusions are given, so the routing guidance is only implicit.

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