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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false and readOnly=false; the description adds what annotations cannot express — that the operation costs one undo step, is recoverable via undo_storyboard, and consumes no credits. This is exactly the extra behavioral context that matters for a destructive call, though it doesn't say whether the id must exist or what happens on a bad id.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the action and target, then reversibility, then cost. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from annotations or schema.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers scope, reversibility and cost; the only meaningful gap for a 2-param destructive tool is the absence of any hint about storyboard_id or failure behavior.

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 50%: id is documented with a pattern, storyboard_id only carries format=uuid with no description. The description reinforces the id format and the source of the id ('the brief prints') and implies storyboard_id via 'a film's canvas', but adds no real meaning for the undocumented storyboard_id, so baseline 3 is right.

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 (remove) and a precise resource (one note or text element on a film's canvas), and the id prefix format (note_… / text_…) distinguishes it from the sibling add_storyboard_note, add_storyboard_text, update_storyboard_annotation and remove_storyboard_sound without opening any schema.

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 the concrete condition for calling it (removing a single note/text by the id the brief prints) and names the recovery path (undo_storyboard). It does not explicitly contrast with update_storyboard_annotation, which is the nearest ambiguous sibling, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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