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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but it does not say whether the deletion is reversible (an undo sibling exists), what happens if textId is not found, or whether permissions are required. Only the target scope is disclosed.

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 filler; the verb and target are established 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 two-parameter, no-output-schema removal tool this is close to minimally adequate, but with no annotations and no parameter documentation the agent is left guessing about reversibility and error behavior. A brief note on undo/irreversibility would close the gap.

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%, so the schema documents nothing. The description only implies that screenshotId identifies the screenshot and textId the text layer; it adds no format, ID-source, or lookup guidance to compensate for the coverage gap.

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), resource (text layer), and scope (from a screenshot in the open editor), which distinguishes it from remove_screenshot, remove_asset, and remove_div. It stops short of naming update_text as the modification alternative, but the resource target is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent must infer that this deletes a text layer rather than editing it (update_text) or removing the whole screenshot (remove_screenshot), and there is no mention of prerequisites such as the editor needing to be open on that screenshot.

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