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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the block consumes its trailing blank line (so deleting what geml_add inserted restores the file), references come back as diagnostics but do not block deletion, refusals return ok:false with a hint and leave the file unchanged, and the server is STATELESS so cross-document references surface as unresolvable-document. No contradiction with annotations; idempotency and destructiveness are both corroborated.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and selector semantics, then alternatives, then edge cases and return shape — a sensible ordering. It is dense and delivered as a single long paragraph rather than scannable segments, so a little structure is lost, but nearly every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract (`{ok, file, diagnostics, revision}`, optional `notes`, refusal shape) and the stateless document-in/document-out model. For a destructive, stateless write tool this is complete enough to invoke correctly without further discovery.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the ids array accepts filter syntax (`=== type`, `{key=value}`) that removes every matching block, and addresses are those geml_list prints. The `source`/stateless model is also reinforced in prose, not just in the 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 precise verb+resource ('Remove one or more blocks') and defines the acceptable selectors (ids or any address geml_list prints, plus `=== type` / `{key=value}` filter syntax). It explicitly distinguishes itself from geml_add (what it undoes), geml_set (change rather than remove), and geml_revert (undo), so an agent can route without opening a sibling 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?

Gives explicit alternatives with conditions: 'to undo a deletion, geml_revert the removed id; to change a block rather than remove it, use geml_set.' It also covers the no-match case ('a selector that names nothing is skipped') and how to handle dangling references, leaving little to inference.

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