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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint false and idempotentHint true. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: automatic goal status restoration when the last blocker is removed, and preservation of the linked resolver goal. This gives the agent important side-effect knowledge without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact: a primary action sentence followed by two concise behavioral caveats. Every sentence adds distinct value, and the main operation is front-loaded for quick parsing.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with clear annotations, the description covers the central action and the relevant edge cases. The parameter details are already fully documented in the schema, so nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 both required parameters are already described as UUIDs. The description restates that the blocker is identified by UUID, but adds no additional format, constraint, or relationship semantics beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a blocker from a goal by blocker UUID.' It clearly differentiates from sibling removal tools by naming the blocker as the removed entity, and the final sentence adds a useful boundary by clarifying that the linked resolver goal is not deleted.

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 context for use is clear: this is the tool for removing a blocker from a goal. While it does not explicitly name alternatives like goal-remove-assumption or goal-remove-criterion, the resource-specific wording and side-effect caveat make the intended usage unambiguous enough for selection among siblings.

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