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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the critical two-step confirmation flow and the cascading effect (detaches from every site), which an agent would otherwise miss. It partially overlaps the confirmToken schema description, but the blast-radius detail is unique and valuable.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the destructive/confirmation caveat. No filler, and the most surprising information (the token handshake) is not buried.

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?

No output schema, but the description explains the confirm flow's return (a summary plus token), the mutation's cascade, and the required args are in-schema. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly across two calls.

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 67%: 'site' and 'confirmToken' are documented in-schema, while 'guardrailId' has no description anywhere. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a guardrail from the library and detaches it from every site.' This distinguishes it from adjacent operations like update_guardrail, list_guardrails, and get_site_guardrails, and even clarifies the scope of removal (library-wide plus per-site detachment).

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 confirmation workflow ('call again with confirmToken') is procedural guidance, but the description never says when to prefer this over update_guardrail or when deletion is inappropriate. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and purpose.

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