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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it spells out the irreversible nature in plain language ('This cannot be undone') and explains the zero-based, newest-first ordering, which explains why repeated calls are non-idempotent. It stops short of covering permissions or out-of-range error behavior.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the destructive warning is front-loaded immediately after the operation definition. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations unnecessarily.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the destructive/idempotent flags. The only remaining gap is behavior on an out-of-range or negative index, which is a minor omission for a two-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 50% — index is documented but goalId is not. The description restates and reinforces the index semantics (zero-based, newest first) but says nothing about goalId, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource — 'Remove one progress note from a goal' — and adds the addressing scheme ('by its position in the list'), which distinguishes it from delete_goal (deletes the whole goal) and update_goal. An agent can distinguish it from every sibling without opening the 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?

Usage is implied by the narrow scope (removing a single note), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites or permissions, and no named alternative such as update_goal or delete_goal for the confused case. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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