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 auth scope (project_systems:write), which annotations do not convey — genuine added value. It still omits whether removal cascades to dependent records, which is the main remaining behavioral unknown.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisite scope trailing. Nothing to cut.

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 no output schema and annotations that already cover destructiveness and idempotency, the description covers purpose, identifier, and required scope. The only gap is cascade/aftermath behavior, which is minor at this complexity level.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage means the schema fully documents the UUID 'id'. The description's 'by ID' adds no format or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 resource ('a system from a project'), keyed by ID, so an agent can distinguish it from delete_project (the whole project) and delete_system (the system catalog entry). It does not explicitly name its nearest siblings delete_project_system_class/group, but the resource wording is precise enough to route correctly.

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 names the prerequisite scope (project_systems:write), which is useful context for whether the agent can call it, but gives no guidance on when to prefer this over delete_project_system_group or delete_project_system_class, nor any warning about when removal is inappropriate.

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