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

The description contradicts the idempotentHint annotation: it says removing an already-removed id fails, implying non-idempotent behavior, while annotations claim idempotentHint=true. This is a serious inconsistency. The description does add some context about id reuse, but the contradiction undermines trust.

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 with no filler. The critical information is front-loaded ('Drop a previously-placed annotation by id'), followed by strictness and reuse notes. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage well but lacks parameter details and contradicts annotations. The return value is not described, but given no output schema, that is acceptable. However, the annotation contradiction reduces completeness.

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 only 33% (only rationale has a description). The description does not add meaning to map_id or annotationId beyond their names. For a tool with low parameter coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 clearly states 'Drop a previously-placed annotation by id,' specifying the verb (remove) and resource (annotation by id). It distinguishes from siblings like remove_layer by mentioning different id reuse behavior.

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?

Explicitly states that removing an already-removed or never-placed id fails, guiding when not to use. Also explains that ids can be reused after removal, contrasting with layer ids. This provides clear usage context.

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