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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add valuable behavioral context by naming the required auth session, but for a destructive removal operation it says nothing about irreversibility, confirmation, cascading effects on associated builds/profiles, or failure behavior (despite a notification_message parameter hinting at follow-up failure handling).

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 sentence that front-loads the action and target before the parenthetical prerequisite. No filler or redundancy.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and auth prerequisite but leaves out consequences, reversibility, and what a successful call returns or changes. Adequate to start but not complete.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, including the fallback resolution via ascBundleIds when the record id is omitted. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so 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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Remove a bundle ID') and names the target system (developer.apple.com), which cleanly separates it from siblings like create_bundle_id, get_bundle_id, and list_bundle_ids without needing to open any schema.

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?

It states a concrete precondition — a Developer Identifiers session obtained from start_browser_auth — which tells the agent the calling context. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. when to delete vs. merely update a bundle ID) or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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