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 known. The description adds real context beyond that: the operation is only valid while the decision is open, it fails with a conflict after settlement, and it may return a needs_confirmation envelope. It stops short of spelling out the confirmation/approval flow explicitly, keeping it at a 4.

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 tightly written sentences: purpose, the preferred alternative, then the failure/confirmation behavior. No filler and the destructive scope is front-loaded.

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 covers the important return states (conflict, needs_confirmation) and the mutation constraint. The only gap is the expected format/identity semantics of itemId, which is a minor omission.

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%, with workspace and approvalId documented but itemId bare. The description compensates by linking the needs_confirmation return to the approvalId parameter, which is meaning the schema alone does not supply.

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 (plan item) and adds the key scoping condition 'while its decision is open', which an agent can use to tell it apart from ledger_plan_update and ledger_plan_add without opening schemas.

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 and the condition that selects it: 'If the work was planned and then dropped, prefer ledger_plan_update with status \'skipped\''. It also states the failure condition (conflict once settled), so both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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