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

Annotations already flag idempotentHint and destructiveHint, but the description goes well beyond them: it explains the idempotent edge case (unassigned DIDs are reported as already unassigned), the reversibility semantics (channels return to the pool they were allocated from), the cost model, and the return/error shape. This is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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 action and its scope are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by tightly packed behavioral facts. It is somewhat dense (the 'not a refund' clarification is convoluted), but nearly every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description closes the remaining gaps: it covers the idempotency case, the mutation's reversibility, the cost implication, and the return/error behavior. Nothing required 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter's UUID/ownership constraint is already documented in the schema. The description only restates 'Provide the did_id' without adding format, validation, or lookup guidance, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Remove') plus resource (a DID) and its exact scope (from its Shared Capacity Group/Capacity Pool), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling assign_did_to_capacity_group. An agent can identify the inverse operation without opening the schema.

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?

Clearly states the required input ('Provide the did_id') and routes cost-related expectations to buy_capacity_channels ('only buy_capacity_channels spends money'). It does not explicitly name assign_did_to_capacity_group as the inverse operation or state preconditions/alternatives beyond that, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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