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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description adds real value by disclosing a non-obvious side effect — that references from other resources' parents are cleaned up automatically. It still doesn't say whether removal is reversible or what happens to the draft afterward, but the cascade disclosure is meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the side-effect note. 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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the operation and the cascade cleanup. It could still state the reversibility/permission expectations for a removal, so it is not fully complete.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented (including the draft_id default resolution from page context). The description adds no param syntax or format detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('an addon from a stack profile builder draft'), which clearly distinguishes it from add_addon_to_stack_profile_draft, update_addon_in_stack_profile_draft, and remove_manifest_from_stack_profile_draft. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the small cluster of addon/draft siblings, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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