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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-reversible mutation. The description adds that the target is the signed-in user's own stack (implying auth scope), but says nothing about what happens to historical data or whether the removal can be undone.

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 trigger condition and the action, followed by the parameter note. No filler.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, and the parameter's accepted forms. The remaining gap is behavioral consequence (reversibility, effect on stack score/history), which annotations only partially address.

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 100% and the schema only says 'SuppCo Product ID', while the description adds that the value may be a UUID or a slug and points to suppco_get_my_stack as the source. That is genuine meaning beyond the schema, though it omits any format example.

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 the product from the signed-in user's stack') and frames the motivating user situation. Clearly separable from suppco_add_to_stack and suppco_manage_stack 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?

Explicit when-to-use trigger: the user has stopped taking a product or wants it off their stack. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. suppco_manage_stack) or stating when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous.

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