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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the MCP write-scope requirement, the dry-run preview default, and the fact that the removed widget's configuration is returned so the change is recoverable. Annotations only supply the generic safety flags (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false); the description supplies the actual mutation contract.

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, front-loaded clauses with no filler: action and identifier first, then determinism, then return value, then the auth/preview constraint. Nothing redundant or padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully covers the return value (the removed widget's configuration), the auth requirement, and the preview/confirm protocol, with the schema handling token lifetime and single-use details. An agent has everything needed to call it safely.

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 every parameter (reportId, widgetId, confirm, previewToken) is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the exact-id semantics and the confirm/preview toggle but adds little that the schema does not already say; 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 and resource (remove one widget from a report) and pins the scope to a single item identified by exact id, which distinguishes it from edit_widget and add_widget. It also names the source of the id (get_report), so the agent knows the prerequisite read tool.

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?

Clearly states the write-permission prerequisite and the two-mode flow (preview by default, real removal with confirm:true). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like edit_widget, but the preview/confirm gating and the id provenance give strong operational context.

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