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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the write-tier approval behavior (manager approval on first use, from-now-on vs just-once semantics, and the 'card is the yes' interaction rule). This is genuine added behavioral disclosure with no contradiction.

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 core purpose is stated in one front-loaded sentence, and the approval workflow is appended as a compact bracketed note. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool, though the approval note is slightly dense and could be streamlined.

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 destructive tool with a fully documented schema and destructiveHint in annotations, the description covers the key missing context: the approval/consent flow that affects how the agent should behave. No output schema exists, so return-value disclosure is not required. Minor gap: no mention of whether removal is reversible, though destructiveHint implies destructive permanence.

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%, with both widget_id and companyId already documented in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning (e.g., where to find widget_id or how to confirm the widget belongs to the dashboard), so the baseline of 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 verb and resource: 'Remove a widget from an agent dashboard.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_dashboard_widgets (listing) and configure_dashboard (layout configuration), and matches the destructive semantics implied by the name.

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 provides clear guidance on the approval workflow ('Call it on the first clear ask; the card is the yes — do not re-ask in chat') but does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives such as configure_dashboard or remove_agent_activity. Usage context is present, but exclusions and alternative-selection guidance are absent.

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