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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it mentions the ElevenLabs dictionary synchronization and explicitly states that existing speech audio is not regenerated. This goes well beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint flags, providing valuable side-effect information without contradiction.

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 primary action is front-loaded, followed by essential behavioral notes. Every word earns its place, and the structure is ideal for quick agent comprehension.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers the action, side effects, idempotency, and audio regeneration caveat. The schema fully documents parameters, annotations cover destructive/idempotent, and an output schema exists, so nothing critical 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters already described in the schema (exact word/phrase, project id). The description does not add parameter-specific details, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Remove one project pronunciation rule') and adds the side-effect of synchronizing the ElevenLabs dictionary. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling set_pronunciation_rule by describing the inverse action, and its scope is 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?

The description implies its use case (removing a rule) and notes idempotency, but does not explicitly contrast it with set_pronunciation_rule or state when not to use it. However, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage without further guidance.

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