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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares the write is human-gated and requires an elicitation-capable client, that Stripe products/prices are deliberately left intact, that it refuses when non-cancelled subscribers exist (matching on Stripe price ids) and when it would remove the last tier, and that `bun run plans:sync` must follow.

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?

Front-loads purposethen layers constraints efficiently in four dense sentences. There is minor narrative padding ('was a dashboard-only job') that could be trimmed, but every sentence still carries actionable constraint 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?

Despite no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers safety profile, refusal conditions, side effects on Stripe, and the required follow-up step. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the tier's semantics (matched to live subscriptions via its Stripe price ids) and dry_run (previews anywhere), but app_id is left as self-evident and no format/example is given for tier.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a tier from an app's plan catalog.' It also differentiates from siblings by noting that every other plan tool only edits existing tiers, so an agent can place this apart from update_plan_meta/update_plan_pricing without reading their schemas.

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?

States the exact conditions: dry_run previews anywhere, a real write needs an elicitation-capable client and human approval, and it names update_plan_pricing as the tool that leaves old prices behind in the analogous case. When-to-use and when-not are both explicit.

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