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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds critical behavior: every card tagged with the context, including archived cards, has its context cleared, and that confirmation is needed before calling. This goes beyond the annotations and materially informs the agent about consequences.

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 sentences deliver the trigger condition, a critical behavioral warning, an explicit exclusion, and the alternative tool. Every clause earns its place, and key guidance is front-loaded.

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 destructive tool with annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it deletes, what it affects (archived included), when to use it, and when not to. No missing information that would prevent correct invocation.

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%, so the single parameter contextId is already well-documented in the schema ('The context id to delete, from list_contexts'). The description does not add further parameter semantics but also does not need to given full coverage.

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 (removing a context from the user's set) and clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool update_card. The distinction from removing a context from a single card is explicit, leaving no ambiguity about what this 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 gives an explicit condition for use ('when the user explicitly wants a context removed from their set') and an explicit exclusion ('Do not use to take a context off one card') with a named alternative (update_card with an empty context). This is textbook usage guidance.

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