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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real value on top by spelling out the blast radius: 'The manifest resources will be removed from the cluster.' It still omits reversibility, required permissions, and whether a redeploy/apply is needed afterward.

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 effect before the routing hint. There is mild redundancy between the first sentence and the 'direct removal' clause, but nothing wasteful.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what is destroyed, and how it relates to the draft path. It is slightly light on post-conditions (e.g. whether the stack must be re-applied), but nothing critical to invoking it 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 cluster_id (with a pointer to list_clusters), stack_name, and manifest_name are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as expected naming format or lookup behavior, 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 ('Remove') and resource ('a manifest from a deployed stack') and immediately clarifies scope: resources are deleted from the cluster, not just detached from bookkeeping. It also distinguishes itself from the draft-based siblings by saying it is for 'direct removal of a single manifest without going through the draft system.'

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?

Explicitly gives the selecting condition: use this for direct removal of a single manifest rather than the draft workflow. It carves out an alternative path but does not name the sibling tool (e.g. remove_manifest_from_stack_profile_draft) or state when this would be the wrong choice.

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