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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to re-state danger. It does add real value by disclosing that the call is "Free" (no credit cost) and by clarifying the two deletion scopes, but it omits what happens with missing/nonexistent terms or whether deletion is reversible.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the "Free" cost signal and then the two deletion modes. No filler, though the single-word "Free." fragment is slightly cryptic out of context.

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, 2-parameter tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition is minimally adequate: both parameters get some explanation and the cost is stated. It lacks edge-case behavior (empty terms, mixed all+terms, nonexistent term) that an agent would need to call it confidently.

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 description must carry the load, and it partially does: it explains that "all: true" clears everything and that terms can be removed individually. It does not explain the `terms` array's semantics in detail, whether `all` and `terms` can be combined, or what happens when both are omitted.

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 ("Remove") plus resource ("saved glossary terms") makes the operation unambiguous and clearly distinguishes it from save_glossary and get_glossary. The scope is stated up front, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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?

The two operating modes (per-term removal vs. "all: true to clear it") imply when each form is used, but there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites, when not to use it, or pointers to the sibling save/get glossary tools.

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