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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the required write scope, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about whether removal is permanent, what related records are affected, or error behavior on a missing ID.

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?

Two short sentences, action first, prerequisite second. Nothing extraneous.

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 delete with annotations covering destructiveness, idempotency and openness, plus an explicit scope requirement, the description is nearly sufficient. It could add what the delete cascades to, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Project location ID'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description's 'by ID' only restates the schema and adds no format or constraint detail; baseline 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?

States a specific verb (remove) and a scoped resource (a location from a project), which distinguishes it from the sibling delete_location that operates at a different level. It does not explicitly name the sibling or the list/get counterparts, 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?

Provides one prerequisite ('Requires project_locations:write scope') which is real usage guidance, but gives no condition for when to delete vs. update or archive, and no mention of alternatives. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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