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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose idempotency (what happens if the mark is absent), permissions, reversibility, or any side effects, which is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and object come first. It is efficient, though extremely terse for the tool's complexity.

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 7-parameter tool with nested objects, an enum, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. An agent lacks enough to correctly construct the focus/other entity pairs or know the result of the operation.

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 0% across 7 parameters, including nested focusTest/otherTest objects and ordinal-id/title pairs, and the description explains none of them. The only crumb is the cross-reference to mark-entity-distinct's identity rules, which doesn't compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 (Remove) and resource (a distinct mark between two same-type entities), and names the inverse sibling mark-entity-distinct, so an agent can tell it is the undo counterpart. 'Distinct mark' is domain jargon that isn't explained, but the operation is otherwise unambiguous.

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 reference to 'same identity rules as mark-entity-distinct' implies this is the inverse of that sibling, which is a weak form of usage guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no guidance on what happens if no mark exists.

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