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

Annotations only give bare hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description carries real weight here and delivers: it discloses that Gmail access is lost while past test results retain the address. That is genuine beyond-annotation context about what is and is not destroyed, though it doesn't mention permanence/reversibility explicitly.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first and consequences in a compact parenthetical. No filler sentences.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key side effects an agent needs (access removed, results preserved) while the schema covers parameter meaning. The main omission is guidance on the confirm/guard flow and confirmation prerequisites.

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 app_id, confirm, and seed_id are already documented in the schema (including the guard/confirm semantics). The description adds nothing about any parameter, so the baseline of 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 seed inbox') and implicitly differentiates from the inverse sibling add_seed_address. However, it never names an alternative or explicitly contrasts itself with the other seed tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The parenthetical explains consequences, not invocation context, and the existence of a 'confirm' parameter tied to a hard-to-undo guard is not surfaced in the description.

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