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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description's only extra claim, 'Without a key nothing changes,' is opaque — no 'key' parameter exists in the schema — and it adds no usable behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Very short and front-loads the core action, which is good. However, the trailing sentence about a 'key' is confusing rather than economical and does not earn its place given no key parameter exists.

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, idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description should clarify what happens on success, whether the removal is permanent, and what permission/'key' is actually required. Instead it leaves the one behavioral claim it makes unexplained and under-specifies the two required parameters.

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 0% and both parameters (id, version) are required and undocumented. The description only loosely maps them ('tool id and version') without stating format, allowed characters, or what distinguishes the version argument — minimal compensation for a full coverage gap.

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+resource: removing a tool id and version from the account's library. This implicitly contrasts with the save_tool/list_saved_tools siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus save_tool, list_saved_tools, or execute. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that the tool must already be saved) or of any alternative path.

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