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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds specificity beyond that hint by stating the row is not recoverable and that the hint triggers client confirmation. It does not cover permissions/auth or any rate limits, but it meaningfully enriches the destructive profile rather than merely restating the annotation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. The rationale sentence earns its place by explaining usage and the destructive annotation, though it leans slightly into meta-justification (explaining why the tool exists) that could be tighter.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. The description supplies purpose, non-recoverability, and sibling relationship, leaving only minor gaps around auth/permission requirements for a destructive call.

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 both UUID wrappers (companyId, savedSignatureId) are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas 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?

States a specific verb and resource (removes one of the caller's saved signatures) and explicitly names the sibling ListSavedSignatures it is paired with. An agent can distinguish it from documents_list_saved_signatures or documents_set_default_saved_signature without opening 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?

Clearly frames the use case (clearing a stale signature the agent could otherwise only name via ListSavedSignatures) and names the alternative tool it complements. It lacks an explicit negative condition (e.g. when NOT to delete), but the context is strong enough that routing is unambiguous.

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