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 covered. The description adds genuinely useful consequence detail beyond that: the block's dates are freed and partner holds are released, which tells the agent what side effects to expect. It stops short of 5 by not addressing reversibility or required permissions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: verb+resource first, then the side effects. No filler, no repetition of the schema, and every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter destructive mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the key missing piece — what gets destroyed/released. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Minor gap: no error or failure behavior.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100% — the schema itself explains that `id` comes from `block_id` in get_availability or `id` from add_block. The description adds nothing about the identifier, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ("Remove a block") and narrows scope with "the operator placed," which separates it from blocks/calendar entries created by others. It does not explicitly name the sibling counterpart (add_block) or distinguish itself from remove_calendar, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase "a block the operator placed" suggests when this applies, and "freeing its dates" hints at the intent (undoing an availability block). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of alternatives like remove_calendar or add_block, and no preconditions.

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