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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the destruction scope: the associated note is deleted too, which is exactly the consequence an agent needs before calling.

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?

One sentence states the action and its side effect; the example follows immediately. Nothing is padded, and the destructive consequence is front-loaded rather than buried.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations carrying safety and idempotency, this is nearly complete. The only soft gap is not saying what happens if the tool is absent from the toolbox, though idempotentHint covers that implicitly.

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 inline example goes further by showing the concrete tool_id format ('page.doc/pdf-extract'), which the schema's bare 'Tool id to remove' does not convey, and demonstrates both required fields together.

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: 'Remove one tool from your toolbox', with the singular scope made explicit. It reads clearly against save_tool_to_toolbox and list_my_toolbox, though the description itself never names those siblings as contrasts.

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 only implied by the verb — the agent must infer this is for pruning a toolbox entry it no longer wants. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of prerequisites beyond the key, and no named alternative for related operations.

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