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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the consequence that annotations cannot express: skipped sends are 'gone, not deferred.' That is exactly the kind of beyond-annotation context an agent needs before confirming a destructive action. It stops short of a 5 because it never addresses the non-idempotent behavior (what happens if the same id is deleted twice).

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, each doing distinct work: what it does, the irreversible side effect, and the prerequisite. The warning about lost sends is placed before the routine instruction, which is the right order for a destructive tool.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, consequence, and prerequisites adequately. The only residual gap is the lack of guidance on error behavior for a repeated delete, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself noting the id comes from `holiday_list`. The description reinforces the source of the id but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a blocked date') and immediately ties it to the domain outcome ('so campaigns send on it again'). This is clearly distinguishable from holiday_add and holiday_list among the siblings.

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 an explicit prerequisite workflow: 'Check `holiday_list` first so the user knows which date is being unblocked,' which routes the agent to the correct sibling before calling. It does not state an explicit when-not-to-use case, keeping it 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.