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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the operation is bulk and 'Bounded per call,' but the bound is unspecified. It also does not disclose whether the handle must be your own, whether removal is permanent, or what happens when the per-call bound is reached, which are significant gaps for a destructive tool.

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 with no filler or redundancy. The core operation and the 'bounded per call' constraint are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 bulk destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves critical operational information unknown: the actual per-call bound, behavior when the bound is exceeded, whether another builder's handle can be passed, and reversibility. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it with full confidence.

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?

The schema only says builder is a required string. The description adds the key meaning that builder is a handle carried by cubes and determines which cubes are removed. However, it does not specify the handle format, how to obtain it, or any ownership constraints, so compensation for the 0% schema coverage is only partial.

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 uses a concrete verb ('Remove'), identifies the resource ('every cube that carries the given builder handle'), and the title clarifies scope ('your own cubes'). The bulk scope distinguishes it from the sibling remove_cube, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 implied: use this when clearing all cubes associated with a builder handle. There is no explicit when-not or alternative guidance, and the sibling remove_cube is not referenced, so an agent must infer when the single-cube operation would be more appropriate.

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