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. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that by scoping the blast radius ('Does nothing to claims or offers'), which tells the agent there are no cascading effects on other content types. It does not state what exactly is deleted or whether the action is reversible, but the annotations carry that burden.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the scope qualifier. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the destructive/idempotent profile. However, for a two-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage, the complete absence of parameter guidance leaves a genuine gap the description should have filled.

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% for both required parameters (brandId, phraseId), and the description says nothing about them at all — no format, no sourcing, no distinction between the two UUIDs. With two undocumented parameters and no compensating text, the agent gets no semantic help beyond the property names.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Remove a banned phrase') and adds a scope boundary ('Does nothing to claims or offers'), which helps distinguish it from the save_* siblings that populate other content types. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

It gives a concrete trigger condition: use this 'after the user says that wording is allowed again.' That tells the agent the precondition for invoking it. It offers no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., save_banned_phrase for the reverse action), so it falls short of a 5.

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