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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation is structurally disclosed. The description adds the constraint 'manual quota', which is useful context, but does not elaborate on reversibility, permission needs, or side effects. Given the annotation coverage, this meets the baseline without adding significant new behavioral insight.

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 description is a single, focused sentence that directly states the action and object. It contains no filler, front-loads the purpose, and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 straightforward destructive mutation with full parameter documentation and a destructiveHint annotation, the description is largely sufficient. However, it omits any context about post-conditions (e.g., what happens to the quota) and potential edge cases (e.g., minimum condition count), which would be valuable but are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 each parameter (survey_id, quota_id, member_id) already carries a clear description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so it correctly relies on the schema. The baseline 3 applies because the schema fully handles parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove'), names the resource ('condition'), and qualifies it ('from a manual quota'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like add_quota_condition and update_quota_condition. An agent can immediately infer the tool's function without opening sibling schemas.

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?

The description implies usage when one needs to remove a condition from a manual quota, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The phrase 'manual quota' hints at a prerequisite, yet there is no comparison with update_quota_condition or add_quota_condition, leaving the decision boundary mostly implied.

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