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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the confirm-gated execution model and, importantly, the limited blast radius (location assignment only, not organization membership). It does not cover permission requirements or whether the unassignment is reversible, so it falls short of a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the disambiguation clause second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers gating and scope but omits prerequisites (must the assignment exist?), authorization needs, and what the preview returns. Sibling routing is handled well; the operational gaps keep it at minimum-viable-plus.

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 only 25% (only 'confirm' is documented), and the description adds no detail about coachId, locationId, or organizationId formats or relationships beyond what the tool name implies. The '(confirm-gated)' phrase merely restates the one parameter the schema already documents.

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+scope: unassigning a coach from a location within an organization. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, remove_coach_from_organization, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it ('does not remove them from the organization itself — use remove_coach_from_organization for that'). This is explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, not inference.

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