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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered by structured data. The description does add genuinely useful scope beyond that: the action costs nothing and leaves the creator unlocked and in existing campaigns, which tells the agent precisely which side effects do NOT occur. With annotations carrying the burden, this is a modest but real addition.

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, action first, side-effect caveats second, with zero filler. Every clause ('Free', 'stays unlocked', 'in any campaign') carries information the agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers cost and persistence of unlocks and campaign membership, which is the main ambiguity. It leaves minor gaps such as behavior when the creator is not currently saved or whether the call is idempotent, but these are secondary.

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 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'Creator id, from search_creators results', so provenance is already supplied by the schema. The description adds no format, ID-type, or lookup guidance beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb ('Removes') and resource ('a creator from the account's saved list'), which cleanly marks it as the inverse of the sibling save_creator and distinct from exclude_creator or list_saved_creators. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred from naming symmetry rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'saved list' and the paired save_creator tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or when-not guidance against adjacent tools like exclude_creator (which likely also removes a creator from working sets) or removing a creator from a campaign. The 'Free' note hints at a cost trade-off with unlock_creator but doesn't frame it as a decision rule.

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