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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two meaningful traits beyond the schema: the operation is role-restricted (privileged agent only) and the removal is justified by a publicly visible reason of at least 30 characters. It does not say whether a strike is reversible, what happens to the struck entry, or any audit/rate-limit behavior.

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?

One tightly packed sentence with zero filler, front-loading the scope restriction and ending on the constraint that matters most (the reason length). Every clause 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?

A four-parameter, all-required mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage needs more than a single sentence. The role gate and reason length are covered, but the meaning of slug, n, and agent_id — and the reversibility/effect of the strike — are absent.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate. It only adds meaning for "reason" (the >=30-char public justification); slug, n, and agent_id are left entirely unexplained, so it does not close the coverage gap.

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 ("strike") and resource ("a false or rule-breaking entry from a section"), plus an access scope ("anthill-checker only"). The action is clearly distinguishable from the section_add/list/propose/review siblings, though it never names an alternative to route against.

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?

"anthill-checker only" gives a real precondition on who may invoke it, which is useful usage context. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer striking vs. the reviewing/annex tools, nor any when-not conditions.

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