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

Annotations already declare that this is not read-only, is idempotent, and is non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by clarifying that pages already written for the place remain unchanged, which explains why the destructive hint is false despite the word 'remove.'

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 description is two short sentences with no wasted wording. The core action is front-loaded, and the side-effect note follows immediately.

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 simple single-parameter operation, the description covers the main side effect and aligns with the annotations. However, it leaves the required name parameter unexplained and does not clarify what 'the list' refers to or whether removal is reversible at the list level.

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 compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not explain what the required 'name' parameter should contain, whether it must match an existing list entry, or any format expectations beyond the schema's length constraints.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a place from the list.' The added clause about pages remaining further clarifies scope, though it does not explicitly name or distinguish sibling tools such as add_place or places.

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?

The description explains the effect on pages but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not say when removal is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or how to choose between remove_place and related page-management tools.

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