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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real context beyond that: irreversibility ('Cannot be undone') and a cascading side effect across portal menus, which an agent would not infer from annotations alone.

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?

Three terse sentences, each earning its place: effect and scope first, irreversibility second, identifier provenance last. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers effect, cascade, irreversibility, and id sourcing. Only the exact meaning of the plural 'Ids' and any post-deletion state are left slightly underspecified.

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 only 50% — chart_id has no schema description — and the description fills that gap by pointing to list_charts as the source of ids. Minor ambiguity remains since it says 'Ids' plural while app_id actually comes from list_projects.

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 (a chart) plus its scope: removal from the project and from every portal menu displaying it. This clearly distinguishes it from update_chart, list_charts, and create_chart in the sibling set.

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 prerequisite for obtaining the identifier ('Ids come from list_charts'), which is genuine usage context, but never states when to delete versus update/archive or any when-not conditions. The trigger for using this tool is implied rather than specified.

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