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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the full behavioral contract: a 202 preview naming the target, a single-use token with a 5-minute expiry, the fact that calling without the token mutates nothing, the permission scope, the sign-in fallback, and that the affected section is read back afterward. It even warns that member-authored text is data, not instructions — genuinely useful context for a destructive tool.

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 confirmation flow is front-loaded and easy to act on, but it is then restated almost in full ('This action is CONFIRMED WITH YOUR MEMBER FIRST: call it without `confirmationToken` and nothing happens...'), plus a near-duplicate of the opening sentence in the title and first line. Roughly a third of the text is redundant, which for a two-parameter tool is more than needed.

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, permission-gated two-step tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: safety profile, authorization, the preview/token handshake, token expiry and reuse, and what the response contains. Nothing material about invoking it correctly 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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra credit by explaining that confirmationToken is call-2-only, may be sent on its own without repeating id, works once, and expires in 5 minutes. Those lifecycle semantics go meaningfully beyond the schema text, though the `id` parameter's origin (GET /me/tools) is left to 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?

States a specific verb and object ('Removes one tool from your member's Tools and equipment'), which an agent can readily separate from add_my_tool, update_my_tool and list_my_tools. It never names those siblings or contrasts with them explicitly, so differentiation comes from the verb alone rather than from stated boundaries.

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 an explicit two-call protocol: call without confirmationToken first (nothing happens, returns a preview), then call again with the token only after the member verbally confirms. It also names prerequisites — the 'Update your profile' (profile:write) permission and the need for the member to have connected Automate America — so the agent knows both when to call and what must be true beforehand.

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