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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable context: future events fall back to the static vendor map or review queue, already-booked events are unchanged, and an audit entry is written. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the action first, then consequences, then audit behavior, then parameter guidance. Every sentence adds value and there is 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, side effects, audit behavior, and parameter nuances. With an output schema present and annotations covering destructive intent, the description is nearly complete. It could mention idempotency or error cases, but those are not essential for correct 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the optional actor_id default and the org constraint, and by referencing rule_id from list_counterparty_rules. This is useful beyond the schema.

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 ('Removes') and resource ('counterparty rule'), and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_counterparty_rule and update_counterparty_rule. It also explains the consequence (future events stop auto-classifying), which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explains when to use the tool (to remove a counterparty rule) and what happens afterward, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly among siblings, though explicit exclusions would strengthen it.

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