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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the shared-backend 'canonicality' rule, idempotency/retry guidance, and a mandatory fresh-confirmation boundary before calling.

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?

The first sentence is front-loaded and earns its place, but the remaining text is generic policy boilerplate ('Canonicality', 'Idempotency', 'Confirmation boundary') that reads as template text rather than tool-specific detail. Size is acceptable but only partly targeted.

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?

No output schema exists, and for a destructive no-required-param action the description covers consequences, prerequisites, confirmation, and retry behavior, which is enough for correct invocation. The only real gap is any explanation of the _corply_context parameter.

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 0% and the single nested _corply_context parameter (id/receipt) is never mentioned in the description. The description is the only place that could explain this plumbing, and it does not, so it adds no meaning over the bare 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove the company's logo') plus the observable consequence ('Corply shows its generated badge again'), which distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling set_company_logo. An agent can identify the operation and its effect without opening any 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?

Provides an explicit gating condition ('Only when the founder asks') and a prerequisite (authenticated active company access), plus a confirmation boundary. It does not name the inverse/alternative tool (set_company_logo) explicitly, so routing is inferred rather than stated, but the when-to-use guidance itself is clear.

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