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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it states the call is project-scoped, restores surrounding timing exactly, and warns about the ordering requirement. This is useful behavioral information that helps the agent anticipate side effects without contradicting any annotation.

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 concise and efficient, using two sentences to convey scope, action, the id source, and a critical usage warning. The PROJECT-SCOPED prefix is front-loaded, making the most important constraint immediately visible. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the id source, the scoping rule, and the timing behavior. It mentions the return value (project identity with result), which gives the agent a sense of the response. There is no missing information that would prevent correct invocation.

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 50% — only project_id has a description. The tool description compensates for the undocumented id parameter by directing the agent to 'see get_edl' to find the id, which gives practical meaning. The project_id description is detailed, and the description reinforces its role as an explicit scope. Overall, the description adds value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('one spliced insert by its id'), and distinguishes it from siblings by referencing get_edl and the timing restoration. The PROJECT-SCOPED prefix adds clarity about scope, making it easy for an agent to understand what this tool does.

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?

It provides a clear usage scenario: remove an insert that landed wrong, and importantly advises removing BEFORE re-inserting to avoid leaving the old one. It does not explicitly name alternatives like move_insert, but the context implies when removal is appropriate versus other operations. The guidance is sufficient for correct selection.

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