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

Annotations already flag this as destructive and open-world, but the description adds useful behavior beyond that: removal is from the public serving path and downloaded copies cannot be recalled. It still omits version-mismatch behavior and whether the underlying guide remains republishable, but the irreversible external-copy caveat is substantive.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 four-parameter mutation, the description provides purpose and one key irreversibility caveat, but leaves usage alternatives, the required reason rationale, and version-conflict handling unaddressed. It is minimally adequate with clear gaps, though annotations cover the basic safety profile.

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 50%: company and idempotency_key have descriptions, while expected_version and reason do not. The description adds a concurrency hint with 'at the expected version' but does not explain the expected_version format/source or why reason is required.

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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Remove'), resources ('guide and release media'), and scope ('public serving path'), so the agent can identify an unpublish operation. It does not explicitly name the publish/preview siblings as alternatives, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no when-not conditions, and no alternatives such as summer_guides_publish or summer_guides_preview are mentioned. The use case is only implied by the purpose itself.

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