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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: the query panel's saved query is preserved in list_queries, and the change is persisted immediately on invocation. It doesn't describe failure behavior for a missing panelId, but the key side effects are disclosed.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what is removed and by which identifier, followed by the non-obvious retention fact and the skill prerequisite. The telegraphic 'Saved when this runs; explain it in reason' is terse but not wasteful.

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 five-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the retention side effect, persistence, the approval reason, and the required prerequisite skill. Edge cases such as a nonexistent panelId or authorization requirements are the only meaningful omissions.

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 five parameters are already documented, including the reason and panelId fields. The description reinforces that panelId comes from get_dashboard and that reason is user-facing, but adds little semantic detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource plus the accepted panel types ('Remove one panel (query, markdown or image) from a dashboard by panelId'), so an agent knows exactly what is being deleted. It also differentiates itself from query-deletion semantics by noting the saved query survives, though it never names the close sibling remove_query_from_dashboard 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?

It gives a hard prerequisite ('Load the manage-dashboards skill ... first') and clarifies the boundary case where a query panel is removed but the query itself is retained. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or the condition under which an agent should prefer removing the query from the dashboard instead.

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