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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags this as a removal; the description adds the preview-until-confirmed behavior, which is genuinely useful. However, that same confirm semantics is spelled out in the schema's confirm parameter description, and the description says nothing about reversibility or what happens to existing habit logs, so it adds only modestly beyond structured fields.

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 phrases, front-loaded with the action, with the id source and the confirm gate as parenthetical asides. Nothing here is filler.

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, confirm-gated tool with no output schema, the definition covers id sourcing and the confirm flow but leaves the consequences of deletion (irreversibility, effect on logged habit history) unstated. Adequate to call correctly, thin on what the caller is agreeing to.

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 coverage is 50% and habitId has no schema description at all; the description compensates by telling the agent exactly where to source valid habit ids. The confirm parameter is fully documented in the schema, so no further detail is needed there.

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 a habit from a client') and points at the sibling that supplies the identifiers, so it is distinguishable from list_client_habits, log_client_habit, and create_habit without opening a 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?

Gives a concrete precondition (ids must come from list_client_habits) and explains the confirm gate. It does not state when a habit should be removed versus merely archived or updated, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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