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

Annotations already supply destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it reinforces that this removes a project-language association, explains where the correct ID comes from, and instructs the agent to use name/locale rather than UUIDs when communicating with the user.

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 compact and front-loaded: the primary action is stated first, followed by the key parameter provenance warning, then the user-facing display rule. No sentence is filler; each earns its place.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and annotations already in place, the description provides everything needed: the action, the correct ID source, the wrong ID pitfall, and user-facing formatting guidance. Nothing critical is missing.

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 already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds significant meaning to projectLanguageId by specifying that it must come from the targetLanguages list returned by get_project and must not be a catalog language id, going beyond the schema's minimal wording.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a target language from a project.' It also clarifies the object being removed is a project_language, not a catalog language, which distinguishes this tool from other deletion/removal tools among the 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?

The description gives clear context for correct use by specifying that the caller must pass the project_language id from the targetLanguages list returned by get_project, and explicitly warns against using a catalog language id. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to select and call this tool correctly.

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