Delete overlay

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds value beyond them: it discloses the cascading deletion of widgets, the downstream effect that browser sources pointing at the overlay stop working, and that the endpoint is undocumented and may change without notice. That last point is operationally important and is nowhere in the structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its blast radius, then the side effect, then the stability caveat. No filler, no restatement of the 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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and appropriately says nothing about a response body while covering the consequences an agent must weigh. Combined with annotations that cover the safety profile and a fully documented 2-parameter schema, nothing needed to call this 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%, so both parameters (overlayId pattern and the channel default resolution) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format, default, or identity semantics beyond that, so the 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 ('Permanently delete an overlay') and immediately qualifies the scope ('and all of its widgets'), which distinguishes it from the sibling mutation tools overlays_update and overlays_action. An agent can tell exactly what this does 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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'Permanently' plus the stated consequences, which signal caution, but the description never names an alternative (e.g. overlays_action to disable rather than delete) or states prerequisites such as ownership of the overlay. Adequate but leaves the when-not-to-use case to inference.

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