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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is to add context beyond that. It does: it discloses the QUOTA_NOT_FOUND failure mode and the important scoping guarantee that other quotas are preserved, which makes the non-destructive annotation credible rather than surprising.

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?

Three compact sentences that lead with the action, then the failure mode, then the workflow pointer. Nothing is redundant, though the integration-guide sentence is arguably tangential to invoking this tool correctly.

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?

With no output schema and a fully documented input schema, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: the error contract and the preservation semantics. It omits only minor details such as whether the plan itself or its cached state is affected.

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 all three parameters (app, key, metric) are already documented in-schema as pointers to list_apps and list_plans. The description only echoes 'metric key' and adds no format, defaulting, or scoping detail beyond the schema, 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 and resource ('Remove a usage quota from a plan') and pins the addressing key ('by its metric key'). An agent can distinguish this from sibling mutations like set_plan_quota or remove_plan_feature, though the description never names the counterpart tool explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition for failure (QUOTA_NOT_FOUND when no quota exists for that metric) and a workflow directive to call get_integration_guide with topic=billing before writing app code. It lacks an explicit 'use set_plan_quota instead when you want to change rather than drop a quota' routing statement.

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