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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses that removal is irreversible, that it writes to the audit log, notifies the workspace owner on WeChat, leaves payment marks unaffected, and changes form behavior to show totals without a payment step. This is rich behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core action and scope, then proceeds through consequences and alternatives. It is slightly long but every sentence adds distinct value, with only minor redundancy against the title.

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?

Given no output schema and a destructive, idempotent tool with zero parameters, the description covers side effects, irreversibility, notification behavior, form impact, and the correct alternative. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic burden and the description need not add parameter details. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 ('Removes') and resource ('displayed QR-code image', 'business collection QR code'), and clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool set_payment_qr by noting that one swaps codes directly. The clarification 'no funds are involved' adds precise scope beyond the title.

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?

It explicitly says the tool is not needed to swap codes and points to set_payment_qr as the alternative. It also provides the context of what happens to forms carrying an amount, giving clear guidance on when this tool applies.

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