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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true, and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value the annotations do not carry: the call is FREE (no credits) and specifically that it succeeds whether or not the entryId existed, removing ambiguity about error behavior.

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?

A single compact line front-loads the category, the action, and the id source, then appends the two caveats (free, mutation) without waste. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With 2 required params, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: what it removes, where the id comes from, cost, and the no-op success case. Minor gap: it does not say whether other entries are affected or how the file is persisted, but that is not required to call it correctly.

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%; both entryId and projectId are fully documented in the schema, including that entryId comes from list_disavow_entries and projectId from list_projects. The description's 'by id (from list_disavow_entries)' largely repeats the schema, so 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+resource (remove a disavow entry) and identifies the exact source of the identifier (list_disavow_entries), which distinguishes it from add_disavow_entry and list_disavow_entries among the disavow-family siblings. An agent can select it without opening the 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?

Provides clear operative context: it is the singular removal counterpart whose entryId comes from list_disavow_entries, and it notes the call is free though mutating. It stops short of an explicit when-not to use it (e.g. vs. bulk editing the disavow file), so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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