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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new context: the two operational modes, the required write scope, and — most valuably — that the reason feedback loop influences future suggestions. It does not restate reversibility or confirm what a successful removal returns, but output schema covers the latter.

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 sentences, no filler. The dual-mode branching is front-loaded, with the auth prerequisite and the reason's effect trailing in priority order.

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?

Given annotations cover the destructive profile and an output schema exists, the description supplies modes, scope, and consequence. It is slightly under-specified on the fact that no parameters are required, leaving an agent to infer that at least one of memberId/suggestionId must be supplied for the call to be meaningful.

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 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds real semantics: memberId and suggestionId are mutually exclusive entry points selecting different behaviors, and reason is feedback that trains subsequent suggestions rather than a log annotation. That is meaning the schema's terse 'Why, for a member.' does not convey.

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/dismiss) against two concrete resources (reference set member, suggestion), keyed to the parameter that selects each mode. An agent can distinguish it from references_add and references_suggest without opening any 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?

The description makes the selection rule explicit: use memberId to remove a set member, suggestionId to dismiss a suggestion. It also states the precondition ('Needs the write scope'). It lacks an explicit 'do not use for X' exclusion against siblings like posts_dismiss, but the framing is clear enough to route correctly.

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