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

Annotations already communicate that this is a mutating, idempotent operation, so the description does not need to restate those traits. The phrase 'from a goal edge' adds some context about the target, but it does not clarify side effects, such as whether the assumption is also deleted or only unlinked.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word contributes to stating the tool's core action and target.

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 simple one-parameter, idempotent mutation with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is ambiguity about whether removal affects the assumption entity itself or only the edge, but this does not impede the agent from invoking the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter is documented as 'UUID допущения,' which adequately identifies the assumption UUID. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource, 'Remove an assumption from a goal edge,' which clearly identifies the operation. It differentiates from siblings like goal-add-assumption, goal-update-assumption, and goal-remove-criterion by naming both the resource and the location of the removal.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or situations where a different sibling such as goal-update-assumption or goal-remove-criterion would be more appropriate.

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