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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds minor value by specifying it removes 'one holding', implying a single entity deletion, but it does not disclose irreversibility, side effects on related data, 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?

The description is one concise sentence, immediately front-loaded with the action ('removes'). It wastes no words and is easy for an agent to parse.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description is very minimal for a destructive operation. It lacks contextual information such as what happens to associated holdings, whether deletion is permanent, or any preconditions. The complexity is low, but the absence of behavioral context makes it incomplete for safe invocation.

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% (both parameters have descriptions like 'UUID value wrapper'), so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, keeping the baseline score at 3.

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 clearly states the action ('removes') and the specific resource ('one holding'), which is more precise than the title. It distinguishes this from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_cap_table_agreement, delete_cap_table_round) by focusing on the security/holding entity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Unlike examples like 'use search_calls_extensive instead', there is no mention of alternative tools or specific conditions for deletion.

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