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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the removal capability is consistent and expected. The description adds nothing beyond that — no statement of what happens to the removed heading's items (the `into` parameter's role), and no note on irreversibility, though the schema covers the destination case.

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, front-loaded with the operation set before the usage rule. The clause 'Give one of to, before, after or remove' is slightly compressed/ungrammatical but wastes no space.

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 an 8-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation choice but never mentions `into` (where items go on removal) or `kind`, both of which change the call materially. An agent could construct a destructive call without realizing it must decide the fate of the heading's items.

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 88%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuine constraint not present in the schema: exactly one of to/before/after/remove must be supplied. It omits `into`, `kind` and `project`, but those are adequately described in the schema itself.

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?

Uses specific verbs (rename, reorder, remove) against a specific resource (a heading in a list), and explicitly separates itself from the `add` sibling for creation. It never reconciles the tool name `section` with 'heading', so the noun mapping is left to inference.

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?

Gives real routing guidance: creation belongs to `add`, and this tool takes one of to/before/after/remove. It does not spell out the mapping of intent to parameter (rename→to, reorder→before/after), leaving the agent to infer it.

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