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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds a real side effect the annotations do not convey: remaining steps are re-packed to stay contiguous, and the updated step list is returned. That is meaningfully useful context for a destructive mutation.

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 short sentences: action, side effect, return value. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every sentence adds information with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly discloses the return value (the updated step list) and the re-packing behavior. For a two-param destructive tool this covers what an agent needs; only auth/permission expectations are unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters carrying UUID format and provenance hints (step_id references meisa_get_sequence), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is already structured, which is the baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb (Remove) plus precise scope (a step from a sequence), which cleanly separates it from meisa_delete_sequence (whole sequence) and meisa_delete_template_block. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it lands at 4 rather than 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 is implied by the purpose: remove a step. There is no explicit when-to-use, no reference to alternatives such as reorder_sequence_steps or update_sequence_step, and no prerequisites stated. Adequate but thin.

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