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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds behavior the annotations cannot convey: the underlying article survives the removal, the change propagates only at the section's next page load (deferred visibility), and the required role is editor/admin/owner. It also explains the non-obvious false return case ('removed is false when the section did not list it'), which is exactly the kind of idempotency nuance an agent needs.

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?

Effect statement comes first, then the non-destructive clarification, then propagation and permission notes, with Args and Returns compactly separated. The Args block is mildly redundant against a 100%-covered schema, but it is two lines and the Returns line earns its place because no output schema exists.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is mutated, what is preserved, who may call it, when the effect becomes visible, and the shape and failure mode of the response. The site_id parameter is the only element not echoed in prose, and the schema documents it thoroughly.

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 section_id and article_id are already fully documented, including the useful 'not its key' hint and the site_id multi-help-center routing note. The description's Args block merely restates the two required parameters with types and adds no format or constraint information beyond the schema; 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Take one FAQ off a custom section's list', and immediately disambiguates the most likely confusion by noting 'The article itself is kept', which separates it from helpcenter_delete_article and helpcenter_delete_faq_section. It stops short of naming the complementary sibling (helpcenter_add_faq_section_articles) explicitly, so a 4 rather than 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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is for detaching an existing FAQ from a section without deleting it, and the description adds a real precondition ('Needs an editor, admin or owner of the help center'). However, it never says when to prefer this over delete_article or reorder_faq_section_articles, nor what to do if the article is not currently listed.

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