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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond that by specifying exactly what is destroyed (shelf, progress, notes) and what survives (rating) - the key fact an agent needs before calling a destructive tool. It also states the prerequisite of a linked Siftivo account, which no annotation conveys.

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?

Information is front-loaded: destructive scope first, then intent matching, then the alternative, then the auth requirement. It is dense but every clause carries signal; the only slight slack is the pronoun "their rating" whose referent must be inferred.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers consequences, prerequisites, and the sibling alternative. The remaining gap is the workId identifier format, which neither the schema nor the description explains.

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 0% for the single workId parameter, so the description would need to clarify identifier semantics. It only says "a book" and never explains that workId identifies a work rather than a shelf entry or edition, leaving the parameter's format and provenance unstated.

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?

"Take a book off the linked reader's shelves" gives a specific verb plus resource, and it immediately enumerates the consequences (shelf, progress, notes discarded; rating retained). The mention of add_to_library makes the boundary with the sibling tool unambiguous.

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?

It names the matching user intent ("remove X from my list") and explicitly redirects the adjacent-but-different case (moving between shelves) to add_to_library with a new readingStatus. When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the alternative are all present.

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