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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent), the description discloses that nothing is truly lost—the check and cells are kept and readable with deleted=true, and restoration is possible. It also explains the side effects on the checklist (leaves list, stops holding page, stops accepting ticks), adding rich behavioral context without contradiction.

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 description is relatively compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage context and a reassurance about reversibility. Each sentence adds value—no filler—though it is slightly longer than strictly necessary, it stays clear and purposeful.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description fully covers what happens, when to use, the soft-delete behavior, recovery path, and idempotence. Agents have enough to decide, invoke, and anticipate side effects without additional context.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents surface_id and check sufficiently. The description adds conceptual context by referencing 'check of your own' and pointing to list_surfaces/add_surface_check, but doesn't introduce new parameter syntax or format details beyond schema, hence baseline 3.

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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Take a check of your own out of the checklist of a surface' and specifies behavioral outcomes (leaves list, stops holding page, stops accepting ticks). It distinguishes from siblings like add_surface_check and tick_surface_checklist, and even mentions restore_surface_check as the inverse, so it's unambiguous.

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?

Provides an explicit 'when to use' context: 'Use it when the requirement no longer applies to that page.' It also implies the alternative for reversal via 'restore_surface_check brings both back,' and notes idempotence ('Taking out an already taken out check answers the same'), fulfilling the when/alternative guidance criteria.

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