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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial context: exactly which load cases and load groups are removed, that plugin-window-authored loads are also removed, and that unrelated loads on the same elements are preserved. It also discloses the preview-by-default behavior, which is valuable for a destructive operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the removal scope, followed by the preservation guarantee and the preview/apply rule. Every clause adds useful information with no waste.

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 one-parameter removal tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is removed, what is preserved, and the preview/apply distinction. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 only parameter is apply, and although schema description coverage is 0%, the description explicitly states 'Previews unless apply: true.' This fully explains the parameter's effect beyond its boolean type and default value.

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: it removes every EC1W_ load case, load group, and their beam/pressure/nodal loads written by the Eurocode Wind Loads plugin. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by naming the plugin provenance and clarifying that loads from other sources are kept.

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 clearly explains the default preview behavior and the apply: true mutation path, so an agent knows how to invoke it safely. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as ec_wind_apply or state when not to use this tool, but the intended use context is clear.

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