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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the concrete consequence that annotations cannot express: existing objects of those types become unreachable, plus the pre-flight check to perform. This is exactly the extra context the bar for annotated tools asks for.

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?

The warning and the sibling alternative are front-loaded and every sentence carries information. The trailing '| EN: catalog, preset, template, apply, clear' keyword list is search-oriented padding rather than instruction, which is a minor efficiency loss.

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 single-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the risk, the recovery relationship to apply, and the escape hatch. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (scope_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no further meaning about scope semantics or format; 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/clear) and resource (preset-created object types of a scope), and implicitly anchors it against the apply/create side of the catalog workflow. An agent can tell exactly what class of operation this is without opening the 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?

Explicitly names the intended use case (undoing onto_catalog_apply), the safer alternative for narrow cases (onto_type_delete for individual types), and the precondition check (onto_object_index) to run first. When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and alternatives are all present.

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