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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by explaining exactly what happens to referencing objects: choices and 'next' links are rewired to the deleted step's own target, or cleared/unlinked when it had no next. It also discloses that revision history preserves the previous version, restorable from the dashboard's History, which is precisely the context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the side effects, then the recovery path and permissions; every sentence carries information. The first sentence is dense and parenthetical-heavy, but nothing is wasted or redundant.

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-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description closes the key gaps: what is destroyed, how references are rewired, whether the change is recoverable (revision history), and what scopes are required. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely 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?

Schema coverage is 50%: demoId carries a description with an example and provenance (from list_demos), while stepId has only a pattern constraint. The description says 'one step from a guided demo's draft', which implicitly maps the two parameters but adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Removes one step from a guided demo's draft' clearly separates it from delete_scene and from add_step/update_step by naming the object type and the draft scope. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling as an alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied by the consequence narrative (removal relinks choices and next links), and the required scopes (demos:read, demos:write) are stated. However there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance versus update_step, move_step, or delete_scene, so the agent must infer that this is the tool for permanently removing a step.

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