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 earns credit for disclosing the cascade outcome — occupants return to the unseated pool and no guest records are removed. It stops short of saying whether table configuration (name, capacity) is recoverable after deletion.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: action, side effect, and confirmation rule. The most decision-relevant content (guests survive) is front-loaded immediately after the action statement.

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 single-parameter destructive mutation with annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the behavior an agent most needs to avoid a bad call. The only gap is the fate of the table's own settings, which is left implicit.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as an integer with a pointer to get-seating for discovery. The description adds no format, range, or lookup guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Removes a table from the seating plan" names a specific verb and resource, and the following sentence immediately delimits scope by clarifying that guests are re-queued rather than deleted. An agent can distinguish this from delete-guest and update-seating-table without consulting another 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?

The description gives a concrete precondition: "Confirm with the user first when people sit at it," which tells the agent exactly when to pause before invoking. It does not name alternatives (e.g., update-seating-table for renaming, or unseating guests first), so it falls short of full when/when-not routing.

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