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

Goes well beyond the destructive/idempotent annotations by naming exactly what is deleted (list assignments) and what survives (completions, issues, worker record), plus the receipting behavior with its recorded fields and the 'write tier' classification. The only thing absent is any note on reversibility or how to undo, which for a destructive operation would complete the picture.

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 terse sentences, each earning its place: scope definition first, blast-radius clarification second, alternative routing last. No filler and no repetition of the annotation hints.

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 destructive three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers destruction scope, side effects, receipting, and the sibling alternative. It stops short of describing what the call returns (e.g., a receipt id), which would let an agent chain verify_receipt or get_receipt.

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 0%, so the description has to carry the load; it does so for the path parameters by mapping them to the endpoint template and reveals that 'reason' is captured in the receipt, which the bare string schema does not convey. It still doesn't clarify that reason is optional or what a good reason looks like, leaving one gap.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Remove a worker from a project') and pins the exact endpoint, then immediately narrows scope: 'deletes only that worker's assignments on the project's lists.' That distinguishes it from delete_worker and update_worker without the agent needing to open any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the alternative case: 'To deactivate the worker everywhere use tascan_update_worker active false.' Combined with the stated scope of removal (project-list assignments only), the when-to-use and when-not-to-use boundary is fully specified.

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