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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on top: the consequence ("so Autopilot stops following it") and a post-action obligation ("say which one it was"). It does not state whether the removal is reversible or how to restore the preference, which keeps it below 5.

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 tight sentences with zero waste: the action and scope come first, then the usage constraint and reporting instruction. Every clause earns its place.

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 mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, an agent has what it needs: what it does, when to invoke it, what is affected, and what to report back. Only reversibility/recovery information is absent.

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 a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage. The phrase "by its key (from autopilot_preferences)" is essentially verbatim what the schema already says, so the description adds no new syntax, format, or sourcing detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (remove), a specific resource (one Autopilot preference), and identifies it by key. It also names the sibling source tool (autopilot_preferences), letting an agent distinguish this from autopilot_preference (set) and autopilot_preferences (list) without opening any schema.

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?

"Only when the person asks to drop that preference" gives an explicit gating condition on when this destructive tool should fire. It also implicitly points at autopilot_preferences for obtaining the key. What's missing is an explicit named alternative (e.g., autopilot_preference to change rather than drop a value), so it falls just short of a 5.

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