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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing what survives the operation (media stays in the library) and that restore_production reverses it — genuinely useful for a mutation flagged destructiveHint=true. It does not address permissions or whether removal can be repeated, but the key consequence and reversibility are covered.

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: the effect and precondition first, then the side-effect/reversal note. No filler, nothing that could be cut.

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 single-parameter, single-purpose tool with no output schema and safety already declared by annotations, the description supplies all the missing pieces: precondition, what is preserved, and how to undo it.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself noting where productionId comes from (list_productions or create_production). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Moves ... a production to Removed") plus the precondition state (finished, failed or cancelled). The archive-to-Removed framing and the explicit contrast with restore_production make it unambiguous against sibling tools.

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 a clear usage condition (only finished/failed/cancelled productions) and names the inverse operation (restore_production) for reversal. It does not address the nearby alternative cancel_production, so an agent must infer whether to cancel or remove an in-flight production.

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