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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the crucial nuance the annotations cannot: what is destroyed (the public listing) versus what is preserved (the owner's private library copy). It stops short of stating whether the story can be republished or what happens if it is not currently public.

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. The scope of removal is front-loaded, and the preservation guarantee follows immediately as the key consequence.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers the essential scope distinction an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around republishing/undo behavior and the error case of removing a story that is not public.

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 50%: confirmPublicRemoval is well documented as a user-approval gate, while storyId is only typed as a positive integer. The description adds no parameter-level detail in either direction, so it neither compensates for the storyId gap nor reinforces the confirmation-workflow requirement.

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 (remove) and resource (a story owned by the connected account) with explicit scope: the public Story World library, not the private library. This cleanly separates it from delete_story and publish_story_to_world without needing to open either 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?

Usage is implied by stating the effect (public library removal, private copy retained), which helps an agent infer this is the unpublish path rather than the delete path. However, no sibling is named explicitly and no when-not-to-use condition is given, so routing is left to inference.

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