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

The description explains why destructiveHint=false despite a delete-shaped name: the removal is only staged until a human-approved deploy, and the call itself prompts nobody. That reconciles the naming with the annotations and is real value-add. The fragment "`broken`: references deploys skip" is too cryptic to count as disclosure.

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?

Short and front-loaded, which is good, but the middle sentence ("`broken`: references deploys skip") is a compressed fragment that costs space without conveying a parseable rule. Two of three sentences earn their 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?

For a four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the two things an agent most needs: the effect is deferred and no confirmation is raised here. It still leaves open whether the service keeps running until the deploy and how a staged removal is undone (the `discard` sibling is never mentioned).

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 75%, so most parameters (project, environment, expect_revision) are already documented at the schema level. The description adds nothing about parameters, and the required `service` argument has no description in either the schema or the description; the opaque `broken` reference may relate to inputs but is not resolvable.

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 ("Remove a Service") plus the key nuance that the removal is staged rather than immediate. It does not differentiate against near siblings such as service_stop or environment_remove, so an agent must infer which removal tool applies.

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?

"This call asks no human" signals that the call is safe to invoke without an interactive confirmation, which is genuinely usage-relevant. Beyond that, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives like service_stop or `discard` for reversing a staged removal.

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