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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing that the delete is a soft delete (record preservation) and that the call may return `needs_confirmation`, hinting at an approval flow that the annotations do not express.

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 action and its soft-delete qualifier are front-loaded, followed by routing guidance and the id source. Sentences earn their place, though the 'dismiss verb / remove verb' metaphor phrasing is slightly more elaborate than a terse statement would require.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the behavioral burden: it explains the soft-delete semantics, the confirmation flow, and correct usage relative to siblings. It is nearly complete, only omitting any detail about downstream effects on linked records or workspace scoping.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds provenance for opportunityId ("Ids come from compass_opportunities_list") and ties the needs_confirmation behavior to the approvalId parameter's purpose, adding meaning beyond the raw field docs.

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 (removes) and resource (opportunity) and immediately qualifies it as a soft delete, which materially changes what the agent expects. It also names the sibling it must not be confused with (compass_opportunities_set_status) and the verb-family nuance against other opportunity operations.

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 explicit routing: use this as the dismiss verb for unwanted AI proposals, the remove verb for duplicate/mistaken captured experiments, and prefer set_status REJECTED when concluding a real experiment without evidence. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance the dimension rewards.

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