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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that this removes from a saved list, which is a state-changing but non-destructive action. It doesn't add context about confirmation requirements or side effects beyond what the confirm parameter suggests.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the action. The description is minimal but complete for what it states.

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 simple removal tool with annotations covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description is mostly adequate. However, it doesn't mention the confirm parameter's role or any prerequisites (e.g., creator must be saved), and there's no output schema. The confirm parameter hints at a guard flow that the description doesn't explain.

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 50%: creator_id is described by name/format but not in the description text; confirm has a description in the schema. The tool description doesn't explain the parameters, but the schema covers confirm's purpose and creator_id's format. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does partial heavy lifting.

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 'Remove a creator from your saved list' clearly states the verb (remove), resource (creator), and target (saved list). It distinguishes from the sibling save_creator by being the inverse operation, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.

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?

The description implies usage context: use when a user wants to unsave a creator. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the inverse relationship with save_creator is clear from the name and description.

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