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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful detail beyond the structured data: the required 'project_systems:write' scope, which tells the agent about authorization prerequisites. It does not explain cascade effects (whether the system entity itself is deleted or only unlinked), which keeps it short of a 5.

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, no waste, with the action and its target front-loaded ahead of the authorization requirement. Nothing could be trimmed without losing 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 single-parameter delete whose annotations already declare destructiveness and idempotency, the description covers the action, target, identifier, and required scope. The remaining gap is the unresolved ambiguity of whether removal unlinks or destroys the system record, which a higher score would require clarifying.

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 100% — the 'id' parameter is fully documented as a UUID 'Project system ID' in the schema. The description adds only 'by ID,' which carries no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 description states a specific verb+resource: 'Remove a system from a project by ID.' That is clear and unambiguous about what entity is targeted. However, it does not differentiate itself from adjacent siblings like delete_system or delete_project_system_group, so an agent must infer the distinction from naming alone.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tool (e.g., delete_system for removing the system entity itself, or delete_project_system_group for a group) is named. The agent is left to guess whether this unlinks an association or deletes the underlying system.

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