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

The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations by explicitly stating the operation is permanent and cannot be undone. While the destructiveHint annotation already signals destructiveness, the irreversibility warning is extra value the agent can use for cautious decision-making.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The destructive nature is front-loaded, and the ID sourcing tip follows naturally. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the action, the risk, and how to obtain a valid input. No output schema exists, and the annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/destructive profile, so little else is needed.

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 has 0% coverage for the single leadListId parameter, but the description compensates by pointing the agent to campaignstack_list_lead_lists to obtain valid IDs. The parameter name is also self-explanatory given the tool's purpose, though more detail about the ID format or source would be even stronger.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a lead list.' This clearly distinguishes the operation from nearby siblings like campaignstack_remove_leads_from_list, which removes leads rather than deleting the entire list.

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 gives clear context: use this when you want permanent deletion of a lead list. It also instructs the agent to use campaignstack_list_lead_lists to find valid lead list IDs, providing concrete guidance for preparing the call. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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