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

Discloses that the operation deletes the agent, interrupts active runs, and pauses their sandboxes—materially beyond the destructiveHint annotation. This gives the agent a precise mental model of side effects.

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 information is valuable but packed into a single rambling sentence; the clause 'on a team that changes its automations without revisions' disrupts flow and could be clearer as separate sentences.

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 2-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, side effects, and the relevant automation-modification context. It lacks only explicit sibling routing (e.g., when to use removeAutomationRevisionAgent instead) to be fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% with simple descriptions ('Agent ID', 'Automation ID') that already define the two required UUIDs. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so 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?

States a specific action: removing an agent from an automation, and explicitly notes the agent is deleted. The 'without revisions' clause and the deletion side effect distinguish it from revision-based and queue-removal siblings.

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 clear context: it applies to automations changed without revisions (direct-edit mode) and compares the effect to a standalone agent delete. It does not explicitly name alternatives like removeAutomationRevisionAgent or state when not to use them.

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