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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds the non-obvious propagation to a public status page and the precise bounds of the destructive effect (check and other dashboards untouched). The no-op clause corroborates the idempotency hint with concrete meaning. It stops short of stating authorization requirements or the response shape, but the output schema covers returns.

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, zero filler, with the primary action and its scope in the first clause. Each following sentence adds a distinct non-redundant fact: status-page propagation, blast radius, and idempotent no-op.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the action, its side effects, its blast radius, and its no-op behavior. Only permission/auth requirements and error conditions remain unstated, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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 dashboard_id (dash_…) and check_id (check_…) documented with formats, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no format, constraint, or validation detail beyond it, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Remove a check from a custom dashboard") and immediately delimits scope: the check and its other dashboards are untouched. That scope statement separates it from the inverse sibling attach_check_to_dashboard and from delete_check without needing to name them.

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?

The description gives clear conditions on the effect: removal also applies to the public status page, and removing an absent check is a no-op. By saying the check itself and its other dashboards are unchanged, it implicitly routes full deletion to delete_check. It never names an alternative explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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