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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety profile is largely covered by structured data; the description's added value is the admin-permission requirement. It says nothing about whether answers or submitted responses are also removed, or whether the deletion can be undone.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the read-only-then-constraint order is sensible. The clipped fragment style is efficient but offers no structure beyond the minimum.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the operation and the permission gate but omits the blast radius (cascading removal of answers/submissions) and confirmation expectations. Adequate but with clear gaps given the destructive nature.

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 both parameters (group, number) are fully documented in the schema, including where the question number comes from. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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 (membership question), which cleanly separates it from add_membership_question and update_membership_question in the sibling list. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, but an agent can still identify the operation.

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?

"Admins only" gives a genuine precondition for use, but there is no guidance on when to delete versus update a question, no note on confirming with a user before an irreversible removal, and no reference to alternatives.

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