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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses several important behaviors: the call is project-scoped to the explicit project_id, it returns the project identity with the result, it uses exact word timestamps rather than timing, and the default removal set is restrict the safer non-word hesitations. These add meaningful behavioral detail beyond the structured annotation fields.

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?

The description is dense but to the point. It front-loads the critical project-scoping note and the one-call claim, then moves through operation, determinism, and customization. Each phrase adds distinct decision-relevant information with little or no fluff.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, scoping, return indicator, and customization. It does not detail error cases or the full return payload, but the mention of returning 'project identity with its result' gives enough closure for a relatively straightforward mutation tool.

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%: only project_id gets a description in the schema. The tool description compensates by explaining the words parameter—its purpose, how to pass custom tokens like ['like','you know'], and the default behavior when omitted. This goes beyond the bare array-of-strings schema, though a bit more detail (e.g., matching semantics) could be added.

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: it removes filler words from a project. It clearly distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools by explicitly claiming to be 'THE tool for “remove the ums” / cut the uhs / take out the filler words' and by listing the exact tokens it removes (um, uh, er, hmm).

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 strongly signals when to use it in natural user phrasing ('remove the ums', 'cut the uhs') and clarifies how to extend its use with a custom words list. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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