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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses idempotent behavior ('Already-absent territories return ok with already_absent=true (no job)'), that a follow-up Tasks operation must be polled and its result called once, a verification step against both legend and canvas, and that geography-only deletes skip Analyze. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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-loaded with the When clause, prerequisites, prohibitions, and next steps in a tight sequence. It is dense and long, but nearly every clause carries operative information (idempotency, verification, engine identity); a small amount of scenario-tag noise ('feedback delete-territory, RL-013 wrapper, T-087 last-leaf paint clear') is the only padding.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description still adds the post-call workflow (poll Tasks, call result once, verify legend AND canvas). The only completeness gap is the four undocumented optional parameters, which matters for a 9-parameter mutation tool.

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 0% across 9 parameters, and the description compensates well for ts/ts_handle/map_session_id, tal_id, and territory_id (including valid sources for leaf ids and a warning against invented shorthand). However part_layer, repair_policy, guidance_handle, and expected_revision are never mentioned, leaving four parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 precise verb+resource ('delete one leaf territory from an existing TAL') and immediately distinguishes itself from delete_tal and from auto_build. It also names the underlying engine (Realign remove_parts + remove_empty_territories), so the agent knows exactly what operation is being performed.

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?

Explicit When clause, explicit prerequisites (one TS reference, tal_id, territory_id), explicit exclusions ('Do NOT invent part_ids or call auto_build', 'never N× this tool' for wiping a TAL), and an explicit routing rule to delete_tal. It even tells the agent to ask when the territory reference is ambiguous.

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