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 only the direct action ('removes one stakeholder') without further context such as irreversibility, cascading effects on associated records, or permission requirements. Given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word contributes to clarity, and the format is easily scannable.

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 simple delete tool with one fully documented parameter, an output schema, and destructive annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the core action, while annotations convey the destructive nature. A minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of permanence or side effects, but these are implied by the annotations and simple scope.

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% with the sole parameter stakeholderId documented as 'UUID value wrapper'. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies. The nested object structure is already explained in the schema.

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 it removes one stakeholder from a cap table, using the specific verb 'removes' and identifying the exact resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cap_table_clear_cap_table_stakeholders (which removes all) and delete operations for other entities (agreements, rounds, securities).

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as cap_table_clear_cap_table_stakeholders for bulk removal or update for modifying instead of deleting. No context is given about prerequisites or situations where this tool is appropriate.

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