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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: it clarifies the scope of the destruction (the modifier survives elsewhere), which removes the ambiguity a plain destructive flag leaves. It does not discuss permissions or any restore path, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the sibling alternative, the id requirement, and the inheritance caveat. No filler; each sentence changes how the tool would be called.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, its side-effect scope, the correct id to supply, the sibling alternative, and the non-obvious parent-inheritance case. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the field thoroughly. The description's warning to pass the LINK id rather than the modifier id reinforces the schema's own note but adds no new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific action on a specific resource: stop asking a modifier in one category. It explicitly contrasts itself with delete_modifier ("The modifier itself survives and keeps working everywhere else — use delete_modifier to remove it entirely"), so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling delete tool without inspecting the 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?

It names the alternative (delete_modifier) and the condition that selects it (wanting to remove the modifier entirely), and it additionally covers the inheritance case with its own alternative ("unlink it from the parent instead"). Both when-to-use-this and when-to-use-something-else are explicit.

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