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

Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds a concrete return behavior ('Returns removed=true when the condition is gone'), which is valuable beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations, and while it doesn't clarify edge cases (e.g., condition not present), it adds useful behavioral context.

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?

The description is two short sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the scope ('PF2e only'), then the action, then the return behavior. Every word 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?

For a simple two-parameter removal tool, the description is nearly complete: it specifies scope, action, and return value. The main gap is not stating behavior when the condition is absent (though idempotentHint implies it's safe). Given the simplicity and existing annotations, it is adequate without being exhaustive.

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?

Both parameters (actorId and slug) are fully documented in the schema with descriptions and an enum for slug. The tool description does not add extra parameter-specific meaning, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline 3 applies. The description's use of 'condition' and 'actor' aligns with the parameter names.

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 the exact action ('Remove a condition from an actor') and specifies the scope ('PF2e only'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like pf2e-set-condition, pf2e-increase-condition, and pf2e-decrease-condition. The return-value note adds further precision.

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 gives clear context (PF2e system, remove operation) but does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it. An agent can infer usage from the name and sibling set, but no direct guidance is provided.

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