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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds user-request gating and idempotency-key reuse guidance, which are useful, but does not clarify what removal actually destroys (e.g., whether scan history is lost) or any permission requirements.

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 tightly written sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded and the retry hint follows naturally, with no redundant restatement of schema 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?

For a destructive delete tool, annotations and an output schema cover safety and return-value explanation, and the description supplies the user-request precondition and retry behavior. However, it leaves unresolved what 'remove' means operationally and says nothing about the identity/format of the two ID parameters.

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 0% across three required parameters. The description gives meaning only for idempotencyKey ('Reuse idempotencyKey on retry'), leaving brandId and targetId entirely undocumented in both schema descriptions and prose beyond their names.

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 (Remove) and resource (the selected tracked public source) scoped to a brand. This distinguishes it from get/list/add/scan siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool and uses 'tracked public source' rather than the tool name's 'intelligence target', requiring mild inference.

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?

Provides a clear when condition: deletion should happen 'after the user requests removal', implicitly warning against proactive deletion. It adds an operational retry guideline ('Reuse idempotencyKey on retry') but names no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use exclusions.

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