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

Annotations already declare destructive/idempotent/non-read-only, and the description adds real context beyond them: what is destroyed (the address can no longer be attached to a form), a hard constraint on the account's own email, and the important non-effect that existing form destinations are untouched. It also states the return value, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Every sentence carries a distinct fact — what it does, where the id comes from, the exclusion, the side-effect boundary, the return value — with the primary action front-loaded. No filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation's consequence, its limits, alternative routing, and the response shape. Nothing an agent needs to call 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?

There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself already saying the id comes from bootform_list_verified_emails. The description's provenance note mirrors the schema rather than adding format or validation details beyond it, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Removes an address from this account's verified emails') plus the scope of what is removed (pending or verified) and the downstream effect ('so it can no longer be added to a form'). It distinguishes itself from bootform_remove_destination, which does something superficially similar.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where the id comes from (bootform_list_verified_emails), states the exclusion ('The account's own email can't be removed'), and routes the adjacent case to a different tool ('Forms already sending to the address keep sending: remove those with bootform_remove_destination').

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