Delete a time series

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds context the annotations cannot carry: the operation is irreversible, requires the Manager role, and returns a 409 whose message names the blocking layer and feature. That is exactly the authorization and failure-mode detail an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Front-loaded with the destructive nature and the permission requirement, then the refusal workflow. The closing sentence 'A series that no feature uses is deleted' is largely redundant with the preceding 409 explanation, a small amount of waste.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers the safety profile, permissions, error semantics and remediation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely and correctly is missing.

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 100% for both required parameters (series_id, project_id), so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning or format, which is acceptable at full coverage but leaves the baseline.

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 time series'), immediately qualified with irreversibility. The resource (time series) is unambiguous against siblings such as delete_observation or update_time_series, so an agent can pick it without opening the 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?

Gives an explicit precondition (Manager role) and a concrete failure path: if the series is used by an inflow/rainfall/boundary layer, detach or repoint it and retry. It does not name the specific sibling tools (attach_input_layer / write_input_layer / update_time_series) that accomplish the remediation, so routing still takes one inference step.

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