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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the required Editor role (auth) and the emitted `video.updated` event (side effect). It leaves gaps on reversibility and whether removal detaches versus permanently deletes the video, which matters for a destructive operation.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and prerequisites/effects following. Every sentence earns its place.

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, annotation-free mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, id source, authorization, and event emission. It is nearly complete, missing only reversibility/detach-vs-delete semantics.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema; the description only reinforces the video_id source. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no format or constraint detail.

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 with scope: 'Remove one video from a video surface.' An agent can immediately distinguish this from add_video, update_video, and list_videos without opening any schema.

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?

Provides clear prerequisite context ('Get video_id from list_videos') and access requirements ('Editor role required'), which tells the agent how to prepare and when it is permitted. It does not name alternative tools or any when-not condition, so it falls short of the explicit routing seen in a 5.

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