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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety and repeat-call profile is covered. The description usefully clarifies the semantics are a soft 'mark as removed' rather than a hard delete, and that item targeting must go through target, not planId. It does not say whether removal is reversible or what the response contains.

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 short sentences, action first, then the required target format, then the operational constraint. No padding or repetition.

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 4-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the required target and the edit-routing constraint but leaves `reason`, the return value, and reversibility undocumented. Annotations carry the safety profile, so this is adequate but not 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 50%, and the description restates the target shape (`{type:

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+resource ('Marks one plan item as removed') and pins down the target forms. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like update_plan_item or replace_plan_items, but the operation is unmistakably a single-item removal.

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?

It adds the important constraint that users cannot manually edit plan items and changes should be routed through chat, which frames who calls this and when. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over update_plan_item, replace_plan_items, or complete_plan, so the alternative-routing is left implicit.

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