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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real context beyond them: the exact-current-version requirement, Personal fallback, billing behavior (owner charged against weekly coverage then credits), and the fact it never launches an agent. The security caveat about untrusted reference data is a bonus, though somewhat boilerplate.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the billing sentence and the 'skills share this knowledge authority / untrusted reference data' remarks read as tangential boilerplate for a removal tool, diluting focus.

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 mutation with an output schema (so return values needn't be explained), it covers versioning, defaulting, and safety semantics adequately. The unexplained idempotency_key and the ambiguous untrusted-data clause leave gaps an agent would still have to guess at.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, but it only clarifies space_id (Personal when omitted) and expected_version_id (exact current version). knowledge_id and especially idempotency_key receive no explanation, leaving half the parameters opaque.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb (Remove) and resource (entries) scoped to one private Space, which distinguishes it from read/list siblings like private_knowledge_get and private_knowledge_list. It does not explicitly name the update sibling it parallels, but the destructive verb makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 surfaces useful prerequisites — an omitted space_id defaults to Personal, and removal requires the exact current version. However, it never contrasts this with private_knowledge_update or explains when an agent should remove vs. update/export, leaving alternative-routing implicit.

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