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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnly=false, and idempotent=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds the 'active effect' scoping but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as permanence or behavior with inactive effects. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the necessary prerequisite is stated immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a simple deletion tool with two fully documented parameters, annotations covering destructive behavior, and no output schema needed. The description provides the necessary workflow prerequisite, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 parameters are clearly documented with names and descriptions. The description reinforces the effect-list prerequisite but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is 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?

The description states a specific action ('Remove an active effect') and the target resource ('an actor'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also names the prerequisite workflow with effect-list, which helps distinguish it from effect-update or effect-toggle-status.

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?

The description explicitly instructs the agent to use effect-list first to find effect IDs, giving concrete workflow guidance. It does not explicitly contrast this with effect-update or effect-toggle-status, but the removal purpose and prerequisite are clear enough for correct selection.

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