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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by naming exactly what is destroyed (four load cases, pressures, load groups, stage activations) and confirming that other load cases are retained. It also discloses the preview-by-default behavior, which is critical 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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the removal scope and ends with the safety-relevant preview condition. Every clause carries useful information 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 one-parameter destructive mutation with annotations covering the safety profile, the description gives nearly everything an agent needs: scope, retention of other cases, and preview behavior. It does not mention reversibility or undoability, which would be useful context for a removal 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that the sole parameter apply toggles between preview and actual removal. That meaning is clear, though minor details such as the type/default are left to the schema (boolean, default false).

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 and resource: removes the four PD6694 EP limit-equilibrium load cases, including pressures, load groups and stage activations. The parenthetical '(the plugin's Remove)' and the scope note 'Other load cases are kept' distinguish it clearly from related route A and SSI tools.

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 a clear operational context: it is the plugin's Remove command and previews unless apply: true. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling such as pd6694_route_a_write or discuss when not to use it, but the intended use is unambiguous.

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