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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the useful behavioral context that the rubric will no longer be used to score future Runs on the build. This clarifies the long-term effect of the destructive operation and does not contradict the 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?

The description is two compact sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the consequence is stated immediately after, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 straightforward delete operation, the description adequately states the action and the lasting effect on future Runs. There is no output schema, but the annotations cover the destructive and idempotent profile, and the schema fully describes the optional revision parameter. The description is sufficient without over-explaining.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline applies. The description's phrase 'Agent-specific' loosely aligns with agentId but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already documents for agentId, rubricId, and selected_automation_revision_id.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and a specific resource ('a single Agent-specific evaluation rubric'), and it conveys the consequence of the action. The word 'single' helps separate it from bulk operations like replaceEvalRubrics, but it never explicitly names sibling tools, so differentiation is left partly to inference.

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 implies a purpose (stop scoring future runs against a rubric) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as updateEvalRubric, replaceEvalRubrics, or deleteCaseQueueEvalRubric. An agent is not told how to choose this tool over its siblings.

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