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 irreversible-mutation profile is partly given. The description still earns credit for spelling out the practical consequence ("Removed facts cannot be restored except by adding them again") and for sourcing the index from get_my_clone, but says nothing about failure behavior or what the response confirms.

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?

Two sentences, trigger first, mechanism second, with the irreversibility warning front-loaded. No redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the low-complexity single-resource mutation is well covered for a two-parameter tool. Minor gaps remain around the both-parameters edge case and index validity/ordering guarantees.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by framing the two parameters as alternatives ("given by its exact text or its 0-based position") and by telling the agent where the valid index range comes from. It does not address what happens if both are supplied or if the text does not match.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("removes one fact") and adds precise addressing modes ("exact text or its 0-based position"). The phrase "the clone to stop saying something" clearly separates it from the add/teach sibling without needing to name it.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ("Use this when the user wants the clone to stop saying something") and points at get_my_clone as the place the index comes from. It stops short of naming the re-add/train counterpart as an alternative, leaving that inference to the last clause.

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