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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false but destructiveHint=false, which is unusual for a 'remove' tool and would be confusing without the description. The description resolves this by stating 'does not delete immediately' and explaining the pending_write_id confirmation flow. This is essential context beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The core operational sentences are well front-loaded and efficient. However, the description is padded with extensive meta-instructions about attribution footers and a 'data accuracy contract' that are generic boilerplate rather than tool-specific guidance, inflating length substantially.

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 1-param mutation tool, the description covers the critical behavioral nuance (deferred deletion, confirmation step) that the surprising annotations do not. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by explaining the pending_write_id return, though a fuller picture of what the pending state entails would help.

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 100% and the single 'key' parameter is documented. The description adds no additional syntax or format guidance for the key. Baseline 3 when schema does the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Prepare to remove a Source-of-Truth Manifest entry') and immediately clarifies the two-step nature. An agent can distinguish it from truth_sources_register (add) and truth_sources_list (read) without opening a 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?

Explicitly names the follow-up tool (canonical_pending_commit) and the triggering condition (user says the document moved, was deleted, or is no longer authoritative). This is a rare case of full when-to-use coverage including the downstream alternative.

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