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

Annotations already flag it as destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: bottom-up, cases-first order; a cap of 100 per call; and the safety rule that anything edited since the run or still in use is preserved. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking a destructive cleanup.

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?

A single sentence with the verb front-loaded, and every clause (order, batch cap, preservation rule, preview default) carries real information. The nested parenthetical makes it dense but not wasteful.

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 destructive, two-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers safety, ordering, limits and the preview default. The only gap is that the '100 per call' cap does not say how to continue when more objects remain.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the apply flag clearly (preview vs. execute) and implies runId identifies the ec_moving_loads run, but never states where runId comes from or its format, leaving one of two parameters only inferable.

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 names a specific verb (removes) and the exact resource set (lanes, vehicles, cases and groups that an ec_moving_loads run wrote), which cleanly separates it from siblings like ec_moving_loads, ec_moving_loads_read and ec_lane_layout. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

It establishes the context (undoing a prior ec_moving_loads run) and states the safe default: previews unless apply: true. It does not explicitly tell the agent when to use another sibling instead, but the undo-of-a-run framing is unambiguous.

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