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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds the draft-survey-only restriction, which is real behavioral context not present in the annotations and prevents a failed call against a published survey. It does not say what happens on repeat calls (consistent with idempotentHint=false) or whether an emptied group disappears, leaving some residual ambiguity.

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 clauses with no filler; the scope ('one condition') and the constraint ('draft surveys only') are both front-loaded before the parameter hint.

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 no explanation, and both required params are fully documented in the schema. What is missing is only edge-case behavior — the error mode on a published survey and whether deleting the last rule affects the parent group.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds provenance for displayLogicRuleId by pointing to display_logic_list, which tells the agent how to obtain a valid value rather than just what it is.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Remove one condition from a display logic group.' The singular 'one condition' plus the naming of the parent group is enough to distinguish it from display_logic_group_delete and display_logic_container_delete, which remove whole containers rather than a single rule.

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?

'(draft surveys only)' is an explicit precondition that tells the agent when the call is valid, and 'displayLogicRuleId comes from display_logic_list' names the discovery path. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. display_logic_rule_update for edits, display_logic_group_delete for removing a whole group), so no scoring 5.

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