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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent's safety profile is fully carried by structured data. The description adds only the scoping detail (the trader's own drawings) and the 'only when they ask' constraint, without new behavioral context like reversibility or response. A 3 is appropriate given the annotations do the heavy lifting.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the destructive action and its constraint are stated immediately.

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 single-parameter destructive tool whose safety profile is fully covered by annotations and whose output schema is absent, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. It does not note what happens after deletion, but with destructiveHint present that gap is minor.

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 id format (sk_ + 16 hex chars) is fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the id source ('from the drawings tool'), adding marginal meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 ("Remove") and resource ("one of the trader's drawings by its id") and points to the drawings tool as the source of ids, which helps distinguish it from siblings like draw and drawings. It is clear and specific but does not explicitly contrast with a sibling delete/alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Only when they ask" gives an explicit gating condition for invocation, effectively a when-to-use rule. However it names no alternative tools or edge cases (e.g., what if the id is unknown), so it is clear context without full alternatives coverage.

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