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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the approval workflow (owner/admin approves in Yaybird) and the returned approval_url, which the agent needs to relay. 'It does not change anything yet' is useful nuance against destructiveHint=true, though it could briefly reconcile that the removal still lands after approval.

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, zero filler, with the action and the alternative front-loaded before the approval caveat. Every clause carries 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 mutation-with-approval tool that already has an output schema, the description covers the workflow, parameter sources and return artifact well. The remaining gap is the selection rule between rule_id and toggle and the default brand behavior.

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 50%; the description compensates for the two undocumented params by sourcing rule_id from get_brand and defining toggle as a house style switch. It does not clarify the mutual exclusivity/requiredness of rule_id vs toggle, which the 0-required schema leaves ambiguous.

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+resource ('remove one of a brand's rules') and names the two modes (rule_id removal vs toggle off), which cleanly separates it from add_rule and update_rule. It also preempts confusion by noting the tool does not delete immediately.

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?

Explains the two use cases and where the rule_id comes from (get_brand), which tells the agent when each parameter applies. It stops short of explicitly excluding update_rule or stating that exactly one of rule_id/toggle must be supplied.

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