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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses a cascade the annotations do not: the meaning's examples are removed along with it. It also reinforces irreversibility ("cannot be undone"), though that largely echoes destructiveHint=true rather than adding new information.

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?

One sentence plus a short irreversibility warning; the object of deletion and the selection rule are front-loaded and nothing is wasted.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile, full schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It omits only edge behavior such as out-of-range index or what happens if the meaning is referenced elsewhere.

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 100%, with both word_id and meaning_index fully documented, so the description need not carry parameter meaning. Its phrase "chosen by its position in the word's card" restates the meaning_index documentation without adding format or off-by-one guidance beyond it.

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 (one meaning, plus its examples) scoped to a word, selected by positional index. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like delete_word (removes the whole word), update_meaning (modifies in place) and reorder_meanings.

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 implies usage by explaining the selection mechanism (position in the card, as listed by get_word) but never states when to prefer this over update_meaning or delete_word, nor any prerequisite such as confirming with the user first.

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