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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description goes well beyond them: it names what is destroyed (pods, project membership, CORS origins), discloses the concurrency lock, quotes the exact refusal messages, and prescribes retry timing. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a destructive tool.

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 dense sentences with no filler: the effect is front-loaded, the DESTRUCTIVE marker is prominent, and the concurrency and retry rules follow in priority order. Every clause carries operational information.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the effects, the safety profile, the failure modes, exact error text, and the recovery path. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to handle refusals.

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% and the single module_id parameter is already documented in the schema with a pointer to list_modules. The description adds no further syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (Remove) and resource (module) and immediately enumerates the observable consequences: pods stop, it leaves the project, its CORS origins are cleaned up. This distinguishes it from the many delete_* and delete_graph_* siblings at a glance.

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?

Gives clear operating conditions: only one operation per module at a time, the refusal names the running job, wait via get_job_status then retry, and retry during platform updates. It routes to the get_job_status sibling explicitly, though it does not contrast against non-destructive alternatives such as freeze_module or delete_project.

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