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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return ('Returns a deletion confirmation') and cost ('Cost = 10 tokens'), but does not mention side effects, error behavior, or permission requirements beyond the obvious destructive nature of deletion.

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?

The description consists of four short sentences: purpose, prerequisite/account selection, return value, and cost. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 2-param deletion tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, account targeting, return behavior, and cost. It lacks explicit alternatives and error handling, but is generally sufficient for basic invocation.

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% with clear descriptions for both machine_id and clerk_instance_id. The description adds the account-targeting behavior ('Pass clerk_instance_id to target a specific connection, or omit it to use the default account'), but this is already in the schema, so no significant extra value.

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 clearly states 'Delete a machine by id from a connected Clerk instance', using a specific verb (delete) and resource (machine) with context (connected Clerk instance). It distinguishes from sibling delete tools like delete_machine_scope and delete_domain by exactly naming the 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?

The description provides a clear prerequisite ('Call clerk.get_connected_accounts first') and explains how to target a specific connection with clerk_instance_id or use the default account. It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for basic usage.

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