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

The description discloses a critical side effect: the public share link stays active after removal. This is not covered by the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and is essential for the agent to set user expectations. It also implies non-destructive behavior consistent with destructiveHint=false.

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 concise sentences. The first states the primary action, the second explains the side effect and the alternative. No redundant or vague language; the description is optimally sized for an agent to quickly parse.

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 simple tool with one parameter and one key side effect, the description covers everything needed: the action, the result on the share link, and the alternative when privacy is desired. There is no missing context that would cause an agent to misuse the tool.

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?

The single parameter verification_id is fully described with its format (UUID) and provenance: 'as returned by verify_photo, verify_content_credentials or list_verifications.' This gives the agent exact instructions on where to obtain the value, far exceeding basic schema information.

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 clearly states the action: 'Remove a verification from the portfolio.' This is a specific verb with a specific object, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like add_portfolio_item, delete_portfolio, and share_verification. The clarification that the share link remains active further disambiguates it from unshare_verification.

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 description explicitly tells when to use an alternative: 'call unshare_verification as well if the user wants it private again.' This directly instructs the agent on the condition for using a sibling tool, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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