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

Annotations cover the destructive flag, but the description adds genuine context beyond them: the auth requirement ('Requires recordings:write scope'), the consequence to other occurrences ('drops instructions every other occurrence relies on'), and the post-state ('Each occurrence keeps only its own prompt'). This is exactly the extra context annotations can't convey.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then the misuse warning, then the scope requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no filler; the caution sentence justifies its length by preventing a costly error.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers effects on occurrences, the auth requirement, and the misuse risk. Nothing essential to correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents seriesMasterId, account, and workspace. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 series' custom prompt'), clearly distinct from sibling setters like hub_set_series_custom_prompt and from the call/event variants. 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?

Provides an explicit anti-pattern ('Never clear a series prompt to avoid a conflict...') that steers correct usage, and clarifies the relationship with occurrence prompts. It lacks an explicit pointer to alternative tools (e.g., set, or clearing occurrence prompts), but the when-not guidance is unusually strong.

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