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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it does not delete the recording, lyrics remain the user's, and the generated audio is retained for recognition. This goes beyond the annotation flags and tells the agent what side effects to communicate after success.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, non-destructive caveat, use cases, parameter selection, exclusions, post-success messaging, and a safety warning. It is front-loaded with the core action and then systematically covers the necessary details without fluff.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what gets removed, what is preserved, how to identify the target revision, when removal is impossible, and how to frame the result to the user. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds selection semantics: 'Pass revision_id (preferred) or revision_hash from listen_url' and 'Do not invent revision ids.' This helps the agent choose between ambiguous identifiers, though generation_id is only explained by the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Take down the public SoundBreak preview page for a song this user created.' It also distinguishes itself by clarifying 'Does not delete the recording' and warning 'Do not call this delete,' so an agent can clearly separate this from a true deletion tool.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when they ask to take a song down, remove the listen page, or unlist a preview.' It also gives concrete exclusions ('Songs on SoundBreak Radio or submitted for store distribution cannot be removed this way') and parameter selection guidance, so the agent knows exactly when and how to invoke it.

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