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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that removing an override reverts to default weekly hours, which provides useful context about the effect. However, it doesn't elaborate on side effects, permissions required, or what happens to the override data after deletion beyond the reversion 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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and its outcome with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and object.

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 simple deletion tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the effect (reverting to defaults). It is nearly complete, though it could mention any prerequisites or confirm the target resource type more explicitly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter overrideId (Override UUID). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details, but with only one required parameter and complete schema documentation, the parameter semantics are adequately covered by the schema itself.

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 (date-specific availability override), and clarifies the effect (reverting to default weekly hours). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like neuron_set_override or neuron_list_overrides, but the specificity of the resource makes the purpose clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like neuron_update_availability or neuron_set_override. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage contexts without any explicit conditions or exclusions.

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