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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing that removal applies across every site language, a scope-of-effect detail not in the annotations. It stops short of stating irreversibility or whether deletion cascades to other site artifacts.

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, zero waste, with the effect scope front-loaded and the id-sourcing hint trailing. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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, two-parameter tool with annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition supplies scope of effect and id provenance. Only missing piece is confirming irreversibility or error behavior on a non-existent id.

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 100% and both parameters are documented (id sourced from list/create, site_id). The description only restates the id's provenance, adding no format or edge-case semantics beyond the schema, so 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?

Specific verb (Remove) plus resource (fully custom service) plus scope (site's privacy & cookie policy, every site language). The word 'custom' implicitly separates it from delete_site_pcp_service, but the sibling is never named, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 concrete prerequisite guidance on where the id comes from (list_site_pcp_custom_services or create_site_pcp_custom_service), which is genuinely useful. It does not say when to prefer this over delete_site_pcp_service, nor what happens when the id is unknown or the service is standard rather than custom.

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