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

Beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description explains important consequences: default-address reassignment, the fact that a prepared letter keeps its own copy, and that the server will not save the deleted address again. This materially improves the agent's understanding of the operation's side effects.

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 usage condition, then the action and key behavioral consequences. Each sentence carries distinct, useful information with 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?

Given the single required parameter, full schema coverage, existing output schema, and destructive annotations, the description covers the important behavioral details an agent needs. Nothing critical is missing for correct 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%, and the schema already explains that sender_address_id comes from get_account. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: remove a saved sender address and delete it from the account. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling save_address tool and does not merely restate 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 gives clear usage context ('when the user wants to remove a saved sender address') and an explicit guardrail ('only after the user asks for it'). It does not name a specific alternative sibling tool, so it falls just short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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