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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses a critical side effect: removal 'Cascades to all evidence on the criterion.' It also states the return behavior ('confirmation with removed criterion details'), adding meaningful behavioral context not present in annotations or schema.

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?

Four short sentences, each delivering distinct information: the action, mode constraints, cascade side effect, and return confirmation. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers when the operation is allowed, what side effects occur, and what the response contains. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without ambiguity.

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 schema already documents criterionId as 'UUID acceptance criterion' with 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema carries the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove an acceptance criterion from a goal.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like goal-remove-assumption, goal-remove-evidence, and goal-remove-note by naming the exact object being removed.

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 provides clear context for when removal is permitted: Grove mode only while in backlog, standard mode until done. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the mode-based timing constraints give an agent actionable guidance on when this tool applies.

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