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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the required confirmation flow, exact-token constraint, expiry behavior, and preservation of correction/audit history. It does not spell out effects on invoice totals or finality, but the critical behavioral constraints are present.

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 description is front-loaded with the prerequisite preview and confirmation condition. There is minor redundancy — 'Requires confirmation' repeats the opening sentence — and the phrase 'Prepare removal of an exact previously read line item' is slightly awkward, but overall it is compact and not bloated.

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 destructive, single-parameter confirmation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the critical prerequisite, token lifecycle, and audit-preservation behavior. It could clarify finality or response behavior, but enough is present for an agent to invoke it 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?

There is one parameter, confirmation_token. The description explains that it must be the exact token returned by the preview, that only that token is accepted, and that changed/expired records require a fresh preview. This meaningfully supplements the schema's token description despite the reported low schema 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 ties the tool to a specific predecessor, preview_remove_invoice_line_item, and says it applies that previewed change to a previously read line item. However, it never plainly states 'removes an invoice line item,' and the phrase 'Prepare removal' could briefly imply a preparatory step rather than the final destructive mutation.

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 explicitly restricts use to after preview_remove_invoice_line_item and user confirmation, states that only the confirmation_token is accepted, and says changed or expired records require a new preview. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance plus the required alternative.

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