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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes far beyond: permanent deletion with no undo, reinstall does not restore the extension's own settings, cabinet menu entries and detail blocks vanish for every user, and per-extension teardown behavior is spelled out (WooCommerce sync stops, Vendara/Zapier disabled, TIMEmSYSTEM settings deleted, Custom Payment queues a final invoice). It also clarifies the blast radius boundary — orders, products and customers are NOT deleted.

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 purpose, then the parameter source, then the confirmation warning, then consequences — a sensible order for a destructive tool. It is long, but nearly every clause carries distinct operational information; the only mild redundancy is the repeated extensionId/not-a-name instruction.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: input provenance, confirmation protocol, irreversibility, cascade effects per integration, and what survives the uninstall. Nothing material 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 coverage is 100% and the schema property already says 'extensionId from get_installed_extensions — not a name', so the description largely restates it. The reinforcement is useful for a destructive call but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the structured field, making baseline 3 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Uninstall an extension from the company') and immediately scopes it against sibling operations by requiring the extensionId from get_installed_extensions rather than a name. An agent can distinguish this from hub_install_extension and hub_get_installed_extensions without opening any 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 states a precondition (CONFIRM WITH THE MERCHANT BEFORE CALLING, naming the extension), a required input source, and an alternative path for the 'pause' intent (there is no pause — uninstall is the only option, so tell the merchant). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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