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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the concrete consequence: with 'remove' the explanation 'goes away with its image or audio and cannot be undone', while 'remove_text' preserves media. It also discloses the response shape ('lists the items that changed and in "skipped" the ones that could not, with the reason'), which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the usage gate, then a dense per-action breakdown plus return-value note — every clause carries information. It is a single heavy sentence-chain with quoted tokens and semicolons, which is slightly harder to scan than a bulleted form would be, but nothing is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description still explains the return payload (changed items plus a 'skipped' list with reasons), and it covers the destructive asymmetry between 'remove' and 'remove_text'. For a 4-parameter, 2-enum mutation tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above it by defining each of the four 'action' enum values behaviorally, which the schema leaves as a bare 'What happens to those explanations.' It also clarifies the 'scope'/'items' complementarity, though that is partly redundant with the schema's own description.

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 set ('Remove explanations, or choose when the player sees them') plus a scope-limiting clause ('without touching anything else'). Names the sibling boundary explicitly ('to take away only the image or audio, use remove_item_media'), so the agent can separate this from remove_item_media, set_item_explanations and set_item_images.

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?

Gives an explicit gating rule ('Call it ONLY when the user asked for it') and then enumerates when each action applies: 'remove' for full deletion, 'remove_text' for text only, 'show_always' vs 'show_on_mistake' for display timing. It also routes the media-only case to an alternative tool, which is exactly the when-not guidance that prevents misfires.

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