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 adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: the party survives the operation and only the signing slot is removed, which prevents an agent from assuming a cascading delete. It stops short of saying whether the deletion is reversible or needs confirmation.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the action, then the condition, then the key semantic caveat. Nothing is padded, and the most decision-relevant facts appear first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. With the action, trigger condition, side-effect scope, and UUID discovery path all present, an agent has everything needed to call this destructive tool 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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described, including the discovery hint for signature_block_uuid, so the schema already carries the load. The description repeats the same discovery instruction rather than adding syntax, format, or scoping nuance, so 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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource ('Delete a signature block from a template') and the follow-up clarifies it deletes a signing slot, not the party — which cleanly separates it from delete-template-party and update-template-signature-block in the sibling list.

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 states an explicit triggering condition ('The user explicitly asks to remove a signature block') and routes the agent to get-template-info with include=["signature_blocks"] for discovery. It does not, however, name the closest alternative (delete-template-party / update-template-signature-block) as a when-not choice, so the exclusion side is implied rather than stated.

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