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 precise blast-radius information (manual recipients only; conditioned/org-unit recipients survive) and mentions that the updated selection is returned, which goes beyond the annotation set. It does not mention permission requirements or any draft/published-state constraints.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the scoping caveat and the return note. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 present, the return value need not be explained further, and full annotation coverage handles the safety profile. The remaining minor gap is preconditions — nothing states whether the signature must be unpublished or which permissions are required for a destructive batch removal.

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 all three parameters (signature_id, email_ids, context) are already documented, including the no-op behavior for non-recipients. The description restates the uuid/batch nature of email_ids but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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), resource (manual signature recipients), and scope (batch, by email uuid). The clause 'Only manual assignment is affected — emails matched by a condition or org unit stay' distinguishes it from the similarly named remove_signature_recipient_entities sibling without the agent needing to open either schema.

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?

Clearly signals the condition under which this tool applies — recipients that were manually assigned — and implicitly routes condition/org-unit recipients elsewhere. It stops short of naming the alternative tool explicitly, so the agent must infer that remove_signature_recipient_entities covers the other case.

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