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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the deletion semantics are covered structurally. The description adds real context beyond them: readings already written are retained ('the series is the record and outlives the instruction') and that a needs_confirmation response is possible. It stops short of describing the confirmation/approval flow or permission requirements, which is the remaining gap.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then consequence, then the preferred alternative. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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 no-output-schema tool, it covers the critical agent-facing questions: irreversibility of the instruction vs. retention of data, the safer alternative, and a possible confirmation response. It could still say what confirmation requires or what happens to dependent feed sources, but nothing essential to 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 67%; the schema already explains 'id' (from ledger_feeds_list) and 'workspace'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and leaves 'approvalId' undocumented in both places, though the needs_confirmation mention hints at that flow without explaining it. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the work.

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 ('Remove a feed') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling update/pause path. An agent can separate it from ledger_feeds_update, ledger_metrics_archive, and ledger_plan_delete 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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('Prefer pausing with ledger_feeds_update') and the condition that selects it ('when the user might want it back'). This is a genuine when/when-not routing rule, not implied usage.

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