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 adds genuinely useful context beyond that: 'The video itself stays on the assignment' clarifies the blast radius of the destructive action, plus it names the source of the identifier (get_assignment).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. The second sentence carries the non-obvious preservation guarantee.

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 two-parameter removal tool with full schema coverage and annotations supplying the destructive/idempotent profile, the description is nearly sufficient. It could note reversibility or required permissions, but nothing critical is missing 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema (including that dispatch_id comes from get_assignment). The description restates that origin but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 gives a specific verb (cancel/remove) and resource (a dispatch = one send or one planned variation of an assignment). The scoping clause 'one send or one planned variation' implicitly distinguishes it from delete_assignment, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: '(dispatch_id from get_assignment)' signals the workflow of first fetching an assignment, then removing a dispatch. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as delete_assignment or dispatch_video.

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