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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior beyond the schema: accepted auth modes ("Human developer key, session, or agent treasury key") and a required post-action step ("Re-sync Turnkey policies in the app so the enclave matches") that would otherwise cause silent policy drift. It omits irreversibility, error behavior for unknown recipientIds, and any confirmation requirement, which keeps it 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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical and the verbless fragments ("Human developer key, session, or agent treasury key.") trade grammar for density, which slightly reduces readability without wasting space.

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 one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical pieces: what is mutated, what credentials work, and the mandatory policy re-sync. Gaps remain around whether removal is immediate versus proposal-based and what a failure looks like.

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?

The schema fully documents the single parameter ("Recipient id from list_recipients"), so the 100% coverage baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, but none is needed for a one-field schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Remove a recipient from the FortFi allowlist") that an agent can distinguish from add_recipient, approve_recipient, and list_recipients without inspecting siblings. The parenthetical policy note is cryptic but does not obscure what the tool does.

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 implies the context ("tightening policy") but never states when to prefer this over add_recipient/approve_recipient or the governance-path sibling propose_recipient_manifest. The phrase "no funding-wallet GOVERN" gestures at an exclusion without explaining it, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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