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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but the description never states whether deletion is permanent or reversible, whether it requires authorization, or what happens to associated runs, logs, and shared grants. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero filler. Every word earns its place and nothing is buried.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent calling it cannot tell whether the removal is destructive/permanent, what authorization is needed, or what the tool returns, and none of that is supplied by structured fields.

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 100%, so both 'name' and the conditional 'tenant_key' are documented in the schema itself, including the bearer-header precedence rule. The phrase 'by its local name' reinforces the name parameter but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema; 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 ('a published tool') with scope qualifier ('by its local name'), so an agent knows exactly what the operation targets. However, it does not differentiate itself from related siblings such as host.registry_publish, host.tool_unshare, or host.state.delete, leaving the boundary between removal and unsharing unstated.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says whether this is for cleanup after testing, deprecation, or replacing host.tool_unshare. No prerequisites or preconditions (e.g., tool must be unpublished, must be owner) are mentioned.

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