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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantive context beyond them: only the link is dropped (the rate, its percentages, and other groups' usage survive), every product in the group immediately stops being charged, and past sales are NOT recalculated. It also mandates merchant confirmation. This is exactly the destructive-blast-radius detail an agent needs.

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 action, then the disambiguation, then the consequence and confirmation warning. Each sentence adds distinct information; nothing is repeated boilerplate.

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 destructive link-removal tool with no output schema, the description covers impact scope, non-recalculation semantics, and required confirmation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely 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 both required ids are documented there ('from get_taxes'), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no format or lookup detail beyond what the schema already states, which is the baseline-3 case when coverage is high.

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 precise verb+resource+scope: 'Stop ONE tax group charging a rate', explicitly scoping to a single group and a single link. It also translates the operation into merchant intent ('remove the city tax from Food'), which removes ambiguity about what object is affected. An agent can distinguish this from delete_tax_rate and hub_add_tax_rate_to_group without opening a 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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the selecting condition: use delete_tax_rate ONLY when the rate should be gone from the whole company. It also flags the merchant-facing phrasing that should route to this tool. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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