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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds genuinely new context by disclosing the required recordings:write scope and the concrete consequence for the next regeneration. It omits what happens if no per-call prompt exists (error vs silent no-op), which matters given non-idempotency.

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 scope, then consequence, then auth requirement — no filler or repetition of structured fields.

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 single-target removal with no output schema, the description covers purpose, sibling scoping, downstream effect, and auth requirement — everything needed to call it 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 100%, so the id, account, and workspace parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about them; baseline 3 applies since the schema does all the work.

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 a precisely scoped resource ("the caller's own per-call prompt"), which implicitly separates it from the event- and series-level clear siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings, but the "per-call" qualifier does the discrimination work.

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 the downstream effect (the next hub_regenerate_summary falls back to the instruction set), which implies usage context, but never states when to call this versus hub_set_call_custom_prompt or the event/series variants, and gives no prerequisites beyond scope.

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