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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds real blast-radius detail: only the caller's own verdict and reason are deleted, and workflow stage plus teammates' reviews survive. It also states the auth requirement (OAuth or scoped token). It does not say whether the call fails or no-ops when no review exists, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by permission and auth notes. Nothing is redundant, though the auth sentence could be folded into the permission sentence.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is deleted, what is preserved, who may call it, and auth needs. The remaining gap is error/idempotency behavior when no review exists, which is minor but non-trivial for a delete operation.

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 only 50%: workspaceId is documented in the schema, but candidateId has no description anywhere. The prose never explains what the parameters mean or how candidateId relates to the review being removed, so it fails to compensate for 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 (remove), a specific object (the signed-in user's verdict and reason on a candidate), and explicitly narrows scope. This clearly separates it from set_candidate_review, request_candidate_review, and list_candidate_reviews in the sibling set.

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?

'Does not change workflow stage or teammates' reviews' implicitly routes agents to set_candidate_stage or other tools for those outcomes, and 'Viewers may remove their own review' clarifies eligibility. It stops short of naming alternative tools explicitly, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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