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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the key justification for that safety profile: 'the exact previous picture returns', explaining why a removal is non-destructive and reversible, plus the project-scoping contract. This is real value beyond the annotations, though rate limits or auth needs are unaddressed.

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?

Two dense clauses, front-loaded with the scoping and write semantics. Every phrase carries information (scope, mutation type, target, reversibility). Minor density but no wasted sentences.

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 2-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, target, and the reversible outcome. Annotations carry the safety profile. Only return-value specifics and ids format are missing, which is a minor gap.

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 50%: project_id is documented in-schema, ids is not. The description clarifies that ids are 'broll fx items' indices, adding meaning for the undocumented parameter, but gives no format/type or batch behavior for the array. Baseline 3 given partial coverage.

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 with scope: 'remove cutaways (broll fx items) by id'. This clearly identifies what is being removed and how it is targeted. It doesn't differentiate from the many sibling remove_* tools (remove_overlay, remove_screen_takeover, etc.), but the purpose itself is 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?

'PROJECT-SCOPED' plus the instruction to copy project_id from list_projects/open_project/project_state gives clear context on required scope. However, it never states when to choose remove_broll over related siblings like remove_overlay or remove_editorial_graphic, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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