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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds substantive context beyond them: the blast radius ('only the overlay entry goes; the source rows are never touched'), the auth precondition for ACCEPTED entries (owner in browser or trusted API key), and the required AUTARIO_API_KEY. It also explains the overlay model so the agent understands what 'remove' means for downstream reads.

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 destructive action and its scope are front-loaded in the first two sentences. The trailing 'Overlay rule' paragraph is useful conceptual context but slightly long for a delete tool and could be deferred to a related doc.

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 tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope of deletion, irreversibility implications via the source-row guarantee, auth requirements and environment variable. Nothing an agent needs before calling 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the description only needs to add format or constraint detail. It says 'by id' but adds nothing about id type, dataset scoping or what happens on unknown ids, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource ('Remove ONE overlay entry ... by id') and immediately scopes it ('derived value, flag, correction or mapping'), which separates it from delete_dataset, clear_rows and reject_proposals. The capitalised ONE also warns against bulk expectations.

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?

Gives clear context for when this applies (connector tables and uploads) and distinguishes accepted entries from proposals via the removal-privilege sentence. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for the proposal case (e.g. reject_proposals), so routing is implied rather than stated.

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