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

The description goes well beyond the annotations. While idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true are already present, the description explains the exact idempotent behavior: unknown, already-deleted, or not-yours ids return deleted=false rather than an error. It also discloses the authenticated-key requirement and the ownership/tenant namespace nuance, which are not visible in the annotations or schema.

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 is dense yet well-structured. Every sentence adds operational value: scope, ownership, idempotency, return shape, and authentication. The main purpose is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition beyond what is needed for clarity.

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, idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides all essential context: ownership rules, tenant namespace requirements, idempotent result behavior, expected return shape, and authentication needs. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It explains that query_id identifies the standing query and gives substantial semantic detail for tenant_id, including the requirement to pass the same tenant_id used at registration and the sub-label ownership implication. It does not specify the exact format of query_id, but the operational meaning is clear.

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 states a specific verb ('delete'), a specific resource ('one of YOUR standing disruption queries'), and the identifying key ('by query_id'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like delete_disruption_webhook and list_standing_queries by focusing on deletion of a standing query owned by the caller.

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 clearly communicates when this tool is appropriate: delete only queries registered by the calling account, and pass the same tenant_id used during registration. It provides important exclusions ('only queries registered by the calling account can be deleted') but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool in favor of another.

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