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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact — matching is exact-string against the previously added URL — but says nothing about what happens on a non-matching URL, whether removal is silent or an error, or whether other resources are affected.

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, action first and constraint second, with no redundant restatement of the name or annotations. Every sentence 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 destructive mutation, the annotations carry most of the weight (destructive, idempotent, open-world), and the description correctly emphasizes the exact-match requirement, which is the main way an agent can fail here. The remaining gap — the failure/return behavior when the URL is absent — is minor given idempotentHint=true.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, and intent/llm_model are self-explanatory. The 'exactly as it was added' clause adds real meaning beyond the schema's loose 'http or https URL' phrasing by implying exact-match semantics, but it addresses only one parameter, so the baseline 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 and resource ('Remove a URL from a Jam's resources'), which is unambiguous and naturally pairs off against the sibling addResource. It stops short of explicitly naming the inverse operation, but the verb alone makes the distinction clear.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to remove a resource versus deleting the whole Jam, nor what prerequisites (permissions, membership) apply. The only guidance offered, 'Pass the URL exactly as it was added,' is a parameter constraint rather than a usage condition.

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