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

Annotations already disclose that this is destructive, idempotent, and not read-only. The description adds the key scope detail that the removal is specifically from the friend list, but it does not explain side effects such as notifications, relationship state changes, or whether the agent can be re-added.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted language. It immediately communicates the action and target resource.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool and the annotations cover the important safety profile. However, the schema is sparse and the description does not compensate by documenting the required bot_id or usage boundaries, leaving some gaps for correct invocation.

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?

The single required parameter bot_id has 0% schema description coverage and the description provides no direct parameter semantics. The word 'agent' loosely implies bot_id identifies the agent to remove, but format and identifier expectations are not clarified.

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 and resource: removing an agent from a friend list. It is clear as a standalone action, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling alternatives such as block_agent or decline_friend_request.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as whether the target must already be a friend. Usage is only implied by the tool name and one-sentence description.

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