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 carried by structured data, not the description. The description adds nothing beyond that — no statement about irreversibility, whether the removal can be undone, or what the caller should expect afterward, which is the exact context a destructive tool benefits from.

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 sentence is efficient and free of noise, but it is under-specified rather than concise — three words carry no front-loaded constraint or consequence for a destructive operation.

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 and full parameter documentation reduce what the description must cover, but for a destructive, non-idempotent mutation it should still convey reversibility and effect. As written, an agent gets no behavioral context beyond what the annotations and schema already say.

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% with both parameters documented, including provenance hints ("from list_listings", "from the edit summary"), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional meaning about either parameter.

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?

"Remove a sticker." restates the tool name and title almost verbatim, adding no specific scope, target, or effect. It does name a verb and resource, but there is nothing to distinguish it from remove_shots or remove_text beyond the noun in the name itself.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as add_sticker (for reversing) or the other remove_* tools. Any usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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