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 meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: required roles, plan restriction, and the plan-limit error behavior.

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 definition is three short sentences that front-load the action and then state authorization and plan constraints. Every sentence adds operational value with no filler.

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 one-parameter delete tool, the description plus annotations cover the key operational facts: destructive action, idempotency, required role, and plan restriction. Return behavior or not-found handling is not described, but no output schema exists to carry that burden.

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 the single parameter 'id' is documented as 'RAID line id.' The description does not add syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a line from the RAID register.' That clearly distinguishes deletion from siblings like update_raid_item, create_raid_item, and list_raid_items, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives clear usage constraints: the caller must be an Administrator or ProjectManager and the workspace must be on a Pro plan, with a note about Free workspace behavior. It does not explicitly discuss when to choose deletion versus updating, but the access and plan exclusions provide useful context.

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