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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds value beyond them: it names the auth requirement, confirms the files are permanently deleted, and instructs confirming with the owner first. It doesn't cover partial-failure or how removal from a draft vs. page differs, but it meaningfully enriches the safety picture.

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 tight sentences, with the scoping constraint and deletion consequence front-loaded. Every sentence carries information; the only mild redundancy is 'The files are deleted' against the destructive annotation.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers auth, the source of IDs, the draft-vs-page distinction, and a confirmation protocol. It omits return/error behavior, but annotations carry the safety profile, leaving the definition largely complete.

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 67% - draft_id and business_id are documented, but photo_ids has no schema description. The description partly compensates by clarifying that photo_ids come from owner_photos current and that draft relates to a business being set up. This is a marginal add over the schema, fitting the baseline for partial coverage.

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 ('Take photos off the business page'), and scopes it precisely to the owner context, distinguishing it from the sibling owner_photos which surfaces the IDs. An agent can tell exactly what this does and what it removes.

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 clear precondition ('Only for business owners signed in to Awning') and a process rule ('Confirm with the owner which ones first'). It implies the IDs come from owner_photos ('by photo_id from owner_photos current') but never states that listing tool as the required alternative, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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