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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the operation is scoped to directory entity targets and explicitly leaves manual/condition-based recipients untouched, which is exactly the kind of side-effect boundary an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every sentence earns its place: action, scope exclusion, and return statement, with no filler.

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 entity-removal tool with a full output schema and complete annotations, the description covers the operation, the untouched scope, and the return. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing, and the return value need not be spelled out given the output schema.

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% and every parameter is documented there, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only adds '(by uuid)' and '(batch)', which the schema already conveys via the array of integration_entity_ids and its '(from list_integration_entities)' hint — baseline 3 is 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Stop targeting a signature at a batch of directory org units / groups') and scopes it by uuid. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling remove_signature_recipients by specifying org units/groups, so an agent can route between entity-level and recipient-level removal.

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 clause 'Manual and condition-based recipients are untouched' clarifies the scope, telling the agent this tool only applies to directory entity targets. However, it never explicitly names an alternative tool or the condition that would select it, so the routing guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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