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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries a lower bar, but it still adds nothing: no mention of irreversibility, no partial-versus-atomic failure semantics for an array of words, and no note that a missing word may or may not error. For a destructive batch mutation this is a meaningful gap.

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 two sentences that say the same thing twice ("Remove words from wordlist" / "Remove words from an existing wordlist"), wasting the entire budget on redundancy. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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?

A destructive, non-idempotent, nested-object tool with no output schema needs more than a duplicated title. There is nothing about failure modes, partial application, or confirmation requirements, leaving the agent to reconstruct behavior from the schema and annotations alone.

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 description names no parameters at all, and reported schema description coverage is 0% for a nested request object containing id, words and projectId. The agent must infer that `words` is a batch removal and must open the schema to learn that projectId is conditionally required depending on key scope.

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 verb and resource ("Remove words from wordlist") so the basic action is identifiable, but it is little more than a restatement of the tool name. It gives no indication of how it differs in effect from the sibling wordlist-words-add, beyond the obvious add/remove polarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus wordlist-words-add or wordlist-update, no prerequisites, and no mention of what happens when a supplied word is absent. The only usage signal is carried by the tool name itself, not the description.

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