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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the danger profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the admin-only authorization requirement, the reassurance that history is retained, and the mandatory user confirmation step. It does not say whether the removal can be undone, which is the one behavioral fact still missing.

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 the trigger condition followed by preconditions and the confirmation gate. The prompt-injection guard sentence is longer but is genuinely load-bearing for a destructive tool, so little is wasted.

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, non-idempotent mutation with an output schema already covering return values, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: scope, authorization, confirmation, data-retention outcome, and injection resistance. Nothing material is left unspecified.

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% and both parameters (topicId, brandSlug) are documented in the schema itself, including the 'Added by you' provenance hint. The description reinforces the user-added constraint but adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond the schema, so the 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 topic the user added to Custom topics), and narrows scope so it is distinguishable from the sibling parse_add_topic and from removing any other kind of topic. An agent can tell what is being deleted without opening the schema.

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 clear when-to-use ('when the user wants a topic they added... removed'), a precondition (workspace admins only), and a procedural gate (call only after the user confirms). It does not explicitly name the complementary sibling or state the when-not case (e.g. topics not added by the user), so it stops just short of the top band.

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