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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real context: this is a spending/deletion action requiring an owner-approved confirmation and requestId reuse for outcome recovery. It stops short of saying what is destroyed downstream (e.g., historical conversion data or attached campaigns).

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?

It is short but not clean: the 'Soclo Ads:' prefix and the unexplained URI fragment 'Fields: soclo://tools/...' are noise that does not read as parameter or field documentation. The confirmation requirement is buried mid-sentence rather than 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 mutation with no output schema, the description conveys the approval/confirm protocol, which is the most important behavior. But it omits how to recover or verify outcome (e.g., via operation status), what the removal affects, and how account/goal identifiers are obtained, leaving gaps for a 6-param nested tool.

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 50%, and the description only touches confirm and requestId — both already documented in the schema — leaving goalId, accountId, adAccountId, and platform (including the required goalId numeric pattern) unexplained. It does not compensate for half the parameters being undocumented.

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 title/description pair states a specific verb+resource: remove a custom conversion goal. That clearly distinguishes it from create/update/list custom conversion goal siblings. The odd 'Soclo Ads:' prefix and the trailing 'Fields: soclo://...' reference dilute but do not obscure the core purpose.

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?

It signals a two-step flow ('preview, then owner-approved confirm:true with the same requestId'), so the agent knows not to pass confirm immediately. However, it never names which sibling performs the preview, nor explicitly contrasts with soclo_ads_delete_* or soclo_ads_update_custom_conversion_goal; 'Claim live only when status is active' is too cryptic to guide action.

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