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

Annotations already declare the mutation/idempotency/safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: it is project-scoped rather than acting on the active project, and it returns the project identity with the result (valuable given there is no output schema). It does not cover failure modes for unknown ids.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the PROJECT-SCOPED constraint and the return behavior before the core action. No filler, though the trailing action sentence is slightly terse for the amount of routing information the agent still needs.

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 an idempotent mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope and a hint at the return payload. It omits what happens to unmatched ids, whether removals are reversible, and any usage routing, leaving gaps an agent would have to probe.

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 well documented inline, but 'ids' has no schema description at all. The description only echoes 'by id' and never clarifies that multiple ids in an array are accepted or what form the identifiers take, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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: 'Remove depth and time effects by id.' An agent can distinguish this from siblings like remove_blur, remove_zoom, or remove_speed. It stops short of a 5 only because the compressed title 'depth_time' is slightly less self-explanatory than the prose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. The sibling set contains add_depth_effect/add_time_effect and many other remove_* tools, yet the description offers no routing, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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