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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: removal is scoped to a name under the caller's line and should occur only at human request, with an example of the removed identifier.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the action and scope, and includes only one clarifying example plus the authorization constraint. There is no wasted text.

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 mutation tool, the description includes the key human-approval constraint and the schema documents the required label and optional secret. Annotations cover idempotence and destructiveness, and no output schema exists; only minor details about success or failure behavior are 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the required 'label' format and optional 'secret'. The description adds an example identifier but does not provide meaningfully more parameter guidance than the schema.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing: taking a name under the user's control away from a line. The concrete example '@sally/accountant from an AI your human stopped using' makes the operation distinct from sibling tools such as join_name, name_line, and approve_name.

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 sentence 'Only when your human asks' gives a clear authorization condition and implicitly restricts usage to human-initiated cleanup. It does not explicitly name alternatives or describe when removal should be avoided, but the usage context is clear.

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