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

Annotations already communicate that the tool is destructive (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), so the major behavioral risk is covered. The description adds the resource scope ('people library') but does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, irreversible, or cascading, which would be useful context for a delete operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or unnecessary detail. It communicates the verb and resource immediately and earns every word.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and a destructive annotation, the description is largely sufficient: an agent understands the action and the schema provides the parameter meaning. An explicit note about permanence or a pointer to list_people would improve it, but these are minor gaps given the annotation coverage.

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%, and the single parameter person_id is already documented as 'Id from list_people.' The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond this, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb, 'Remove', and identifies the exact resource, 'face from the people library'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_product_screen and aligns with the tool name delete_person.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_person or list_people. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool references are provided; the only contextual clue is in the schema's person_id description, not in the tool description.

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