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

Annotations already declare idempotent and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them by noting that both sides are affected, the underlying design slot remains (empty), and a preview is shown. It omits any permission or error conditions, so not a 5.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The trailing clause about the empty slot is slightly awkward in phrasing but carries real information.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes, what is preserved, and that a preview is returned. Only the specifics of that preview response are left implicit, which is acceptable given no output schema.

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 the single template_id is fully documented including its UUID origin. The description only confirms the postcard-template scope and adds no format or lookup detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('tracked QR code') scoped to the user's postcard templates, and distinguishes it from the sibling spur_add_postcard_qr_code. An agent knows exactly what this does 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?

Gives clear context for use: removing the tracked QR placement on a postcard template while the preview is refreshed. It implies the inverse of spur_add_postcard_qr_code but never names that alternative or states exclusions (e.g., what happens if no QR is present), so it stops short of explicit routing.

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