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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally; the description nonetheless adds a genuinely new behavior — that approval is required by default — which explains the approval_id parameter and the workflow the agent must follow. It stops short of describing reversibility, cascading effects, or what happens on a missing approval.

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?

Two short sentences with the trigger condition front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the second sentence is compressed enough that the approval mechanics stay vague.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover destructiveness. Still, for a destructive mutation the description omits what happens to dependent data, whether deletion is reversible, and whether approval_id is truly required given the schema marks only life_event_id as required — a notable gap between "requires approval by default" and the schema.

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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents life_event_id and the single-use approval_id. The description's mention of "requires approval by default" loosely ties to approval_id but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (a life event) and the operation (removed), so an agent understands this deletes a life event rather than creating, updating, or listing one. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like life_events.update as alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"When the user wants a life event removed" gives an explicit trigger condition, which is useful, but there is no guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., archiving or updating instead) and no named alternatives. Usage is implied rather than fully scoped.

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