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

Annotations already flag destructive and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral detail by enumerating the side effects: group assignment is cleared, all display grants are cleared, and the display becomes unassigned. It also discloses the required admin scope and role, which is valuable beyond the structured hints.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and its immediate effects, then states authorization requirements. Every sentence 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?

The description covers the action, the specific side effects, the resulting unassigned state, and the required role/scope. Combined with a full parameter schema and an output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. Clearer sibling differentiation would make it fully complete, but the wording already prevents obvious confusion with delete_display.

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 every parameter, including both required IDs and authentication fields, has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 display from an organization') and explicitly names the consequences: clearing group assignment and all display grants, with the display becoming unassigned. This clearly differentiates it from destructive siblings like delete_display or clear_display, which have different scopes and effects.

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?

The description conveys when to use the operation: when a display should be disassociated from an organization rather than deleted or merely reconfigured. It also states access requirements (admin scope and admin/owner role), but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or provide exclusions.

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