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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered by structured data. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating 'Owner-only or self-removal,' which specifies the required authorization and the condition under which removal can occur. It does not contradict 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?

The description is exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences that convey both the action and the permission rule. No redundant information; every word contributes to the tool's understanding.

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 two-parameter destructive operation with complete schema coverage and annotations, the description is adequate. It states the action and permission rule, and the output schema exists, so no need to explain returns. It could explicitly mention consequences or irreversibility, but the destructive annotation covers that, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides; the word 'co-GM' in the description aligns with the userId description but does not offer new syntax or constraints.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove'), the target ('co-GM'), and the scope ('from a campaign'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_co_gm and list_co_gms by focusing specifically on removal, and even includes permission constraints, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides context that this operation is for removing a co-GM and is restricted to the campaign owner or the co-GM themselves, which acts as a usage condition. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., that add_co_gm is for adding) or exclusions for other user types, so it falls short of fully explicit guidance.

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