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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by disclosing the downstream consequence that isn't in the annotations: objects of the removed types become unreachable, which is why the pre-check is advised. It still omits authorization/permission requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the risk warning, then the undo use case and the alternative. Efficient and well ordered; the 'EN:' keyword tail is minor tag padding rather than prose waste.

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 destructive, single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, its irreversible consequence, a mitigating pre-check, and the alternative tool - everything an agent needs to call it safely.

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% for the single scope_id parameter ('Ziel-Scope-ID'). The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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?

Specific verb (removes) applied to a precise resource: the preset-created object types of a scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming onto_catalog_apply (the inverse) and onto_type_delete (the narrower alternative), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('zum Zuruecknehmen von onto_catalog_apply'), a concrete prerequisite step (check object existence via onto_object_index first), and a named alternative for partial removal (onto_type_delete). Nothing is left to inference.

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