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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable nuance beyond annotations: the default detach behavior ('nodes inside are detached (kept on the diagram without a container)') and the deleteNodes escalation path. It also mentions the token requirement, though that is already in the schema. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting 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?

Four sentences, all information-dense and non-redundant. The main verb+object appears in the first sentence, followed by behavior, option, prerequisite, and auth. No filler or repetition. This is an exemplar of concise, front-loaded tool documentation.

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 tool with robust annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the default vs optional escalation, how to obtain required IDs, and the token requirement. The only notable gap is the absence of return-value information, but for a mutation tool this is minor. Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 params, container-node relationship), 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description elevates this by clarifying the containerId acquisition process ('Use get_document_summary to get all container IDs') and reinforcing the deleteNodes default semantics ('Pass deleteNodes: true to remove the container's nodes as well'). These additions go beyond the schema's property descriptions, but do not fully compensate for all parameter nuances (e.g., token/agentId/userName are left to schema).

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 opens with 'Removes a container from a live Trident document', a specific verb+resource combination that unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling tools like delete_node or delete_annotation. The scope is clear and the action is immediately understandable.

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 a clear prerequisite ('Use get_document_summary to get all container IDs before calling this') and explains the default behavior vs the deleteNodes option, which guides when to use each mode. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool, so it falls just 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.