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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds valuable behavioral context: future cases are no longer judged against the rubric, already-judged cases keep original verdicts, and removal of the last rubric is refused with 409 along with the reason why. This gives the agent critical expectations about side effects and failure modes.

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?

Three tightly-written sentences: the first states the exact action and scope, the second covers the key behavioral consequence, and the third documents a non-obvious failure mode. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important framing ('Remove a single case-level evaluation rubric') is front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with two UUID parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core operation, side effects on settled and future cases, and a specific refusal scenario. The annotations supply idempotency and destructiveness signals, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, with both queue_id and rubric_id described as unique identifiers. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but it does not need to because the schema already covers the basics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a single case-level evaluation rubric.' This clearly distinguishes it from related sibling tools like deleteEvalRubric, replaceCaseQueueEvalRubrics, and updateCaseQueueEvalRubric. The scope ('single', 'case-level') leaves no ambiguity about what the tool operates on.

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 conveys strong contextual details about post-removal behavior and the 409 edge case, but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over replaceCaseQueueEvalRubrics or updateCaseQueueEvalRubric. The 'single case-level rubric' wording implies the use case, but no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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