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 covered. The description still adds value beyond that: it makes the blast radius explicit ('one progress note') and states irreversibility ('This cannot be undone'), which is stronger than the generic destructive hint. It stops short of describing failure behavior for an out-of-range index or permission requirements.

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 filler. The index semantics come first and the irreversibility warning is front-loaded rather than buried, so every sentence 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?

With only two required parameters, an output schema covering return values, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what is needed to invoke the tool correctly: the resource, the zero-based newest-first index, and irreversibility. The remaining gap is silent behavior on an out-of-range index.

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 already documented in the schema as 'Zero is the newest note,' which the description essentially restates. goalId is undocumented in both places, and the description does not compensate for it (e.g., whether the goal must exist or be owned by the caller). 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Remove one progress note from a goal') and pins down the exact addressee mechanism ('by its position in the list, counting from zero with the newest first'). That is enough to distinguish it from sibling post_goal_update and get_goal/update_goal without opening a 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as post_goal_update for adding notes. The indexing rule tells the agent how to call it, not when to choose it.

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