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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and related safety traits, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing the specific refusal code `stream_active` and the reason the live API prevents removal during an active broadcast.

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 three short sentences with zero waste. The core purpose and usage constraint are front-loaded before the conditional refusal detail.

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?

With an output schema and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies enough context for correct invocation: purpose, usage constraint, and a key failure mode. It could be slightly more complete by referencing related siblings or post-removal consequences, but no critical information 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%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about `stream_id` or `playback_id` beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a playback id.' It clearly identifies the operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like add_playback_id or remove_simulcast_target.

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?

It provides a clear usage constraint: 'Call this only when the user asks,' and a when-not condition via the refusal while the stream is active. However, it does not name alternatives or explain when a different sibling tool 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.