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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the deletion is permanent ('cannot be restored') and the only remedy is re-saving. It does not mention permissions or error behavior, but the irreversibility disclosure is the key missing piece.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its scope, followed immediately by the consequence. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

With one required parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety semantics, the description supplies the remaining critical fact — permanence of deletion. Only fine-grained details like failure modes or permissions are absent, which is acceptable at this complexity.

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% and the schema itself explains that entry_id comes from list_dictionary_entries. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies when structured data carries the full burden.

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 and resource ('Remove one entry from the workspace pronunciation dictionary'), which is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list_dictionary_entries and save_dictionary_entry. It stops short of naming those siblings, but an agent can identify the operation immediately.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'only saved again' weakly hints that save_dictionary_entry is the recovery path, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent can infer the context but is given no routing guidance.

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