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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the variant is removed from both the picker's list and the store, and it explains the referential-integrity consequence of a partial removal. It stops short of stating irreversibility or required permissions.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a short first sentence. The second sentence is a bit wordy and em-dash-heavy, but it earns its place by conveying the dual-list side effect.

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 two-parameter delete with annotations covering destructiveness and no output schema, the description covers purpose and side effects adequately. However, with both required parameters fully undocumented at 0% schema coverage, it leaves a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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 0% and neither projectId nor variantId is described in the schema. The description only names the resource generically ('a colour variant'), so it does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation or clarify the project/variant relationship.

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) and resource (colour variant), clearly distinct from siblings like create_variant and list_variants. It does not name an alternative sibling explicitly, but the delete semantics are 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or exclusions. The agent is not told when deleting a variant is appropriate versus, say, editing or reordering it.

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