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

While annotations already cover destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds the key nuance that learner answers are retained. This is valuable beyond the structured annotations. It could go further by mentioning reversibility or effects on course structure, but it discloses the most critical side effect.

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 zero filler: the first states the primary action, the second adds a crucial caveat. Fully front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 destructive tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description covers the main purpose and the most important side effect. Minor gaps like edge-case restrictions or impact on published content are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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% and both parameters have clear descriptions. The description does not enrich the meaning of the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

The description states a specific verb ('removes') and resource ('a screen from a course'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like add_screen, update_screen, duplicate_screen, and reorder_screens. The additional note about learner answers reinforces the scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., update_screen to edit, duplicate_screen to copy, or hiding a screen). The learner-answers note is a behavioral fact, not a selection cue. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and title.

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