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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally; the description adds the non-obvious fact that deletion is undoable via undo_change, which materially changes how an agent should reason about the risk. It stops short of saying what else is affected (e.g. whether student progress or ordering on the item is lost).

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 with no filler: the action and scope come first, the recovery note second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose and recoverability but leaves gaps: no indication of what is returned on success, whether the item must exist, or what side effects removal has on the package (order, progress). With annotations handling the destructive flag, these omissions are tolerable but real.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate; it does so only indirectly by naming the two entities involved ('Baustein' and 'Lernpaket'), which map to item_id and package_id but are never tied to the parameter names or formats. An agent can infer the pairing but gets no validation hints or constraints on the integer ids.

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 and resource in a scoped context ('Entfernt einen Baustein aus einem Lernpaket'), which lets an agent separate it from sibling mutations like update_support_item or add_support_item. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from delete_parent_item or remove_widget, so the sibling differentiation is weaker than it could be.

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 clause 'Über den Verlauf (undo_change) wiederherstellbar' tells the agent a recovery path exists and names the sibling tool for it, which is genuine guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer removal over alternatives such as update_support_item or how it differs from other delete-style tools, so usage is only implied.

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