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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at a constraint (only phones added via add_phone can be removed), but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, side effects on the screenshot layout, or failure modes for a destructive operation.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no waste. Efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 destructive two-required-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves too much unspecified — no parameter meaning, no side effects, no failure behavior. Much more is needed at this complexity level.

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 0% and the description never mentions phoneId or screenshotId. An agent gets no help on which screenshot the phone belongs to, ID format, or why both are required, leaving both parameters entirely opaque.

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 (phone), and differentiates from the sibling add_phone by naming it. It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't distinguish itself from remove_asset/remove_div/remove_text beyond the resource noun.

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?

By tying the tool to 'an extra phone added with add_phone,' it implies the condition for use (undoing an add_phone call), which is real guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites.

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