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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description earns credit for adding non-obvious consequences beyond that: future previews print no signature, but already-previewed letters keep theirs. It stops short of covering scope details such as whether the removal applies account-wide or per workspace, and it does not mention effects on already-scheduled mail.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then consequences, then the confirmation precondition and the reverse tool. No filler or restatement of the tool title.

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 destructive tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers action, irreversibility, effect on existing vs new previews, the confirmation requirement, and the alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 the single confirm parameter's schema description already says 'Set true once the person has agreed: a removed signature cannot be brought back'. The description's 'Requires confirm: true, once the person has agreed' largely restates that, 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 specific resource (the person's saved signature), and it explicitly names the counterpart tool set_signature so the agent can distinguish the two without opening a schema. It is also clearly distinct from sibling clear_return_address / clear_signature-like cleanup tools because it names the resource.

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?

It states the gating condition for use ('Requires confirm: true, once the person has agreed') and names the alternative action ('set_signature saves one again') for the reverse intent. An agent knows both when to call this and where to route a re-add request.

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