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

Annotation contradiction: the annotations set destructiveHint to false, but the tool name and description describe a removal action, which is inherently destructive to the signer relationship. The description adds constraints but does not resolve the contradiction.

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 in formatting but includes full action docs for add, update, and sign, which are sibling-tool concerns. The actual remove behavior is buried near the end and the '[Flattened action: remove]' line carries the disambiguation burden.

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?

The important precondition is present, but the description omits return behavior, error conditions, and meaning of several schema properties. Without an output schema and with all annotations false, the agent cannot fully predict the consequences of calling this tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only explains signer_token for the remove action. The other schema parameters (data, account, doc_token) are not explained for this flattened remove tool, so the agent receives incomplete parameter guidance.

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 lists a remove action as 'remove (signer_token)' and the '[Flattened action: remove]' indicator makes the current tool's purpose clear. However, the description is wrapped as a generic signer-manager helper and includes add/update/sign actions, so the actual purpose is not front-loaded.

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 useful constraints: you cannot remove a signer who has already signed and cannot remove the only signer, and it notes that update is only allowed before signing. This provides enough context to reason about when removal is appropriate versus other signer operations.

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