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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety metadata is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact beyond annotations — the cascade to owned sound cues — but says nothing about recoverability or undo, which matters given destructiveHint=false on a removal operation that deletes dependent audio.

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 trailing clause about owned sound cues is the one piece of information that could not be guessed from the name. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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 and full annotation coverage, the definition covers what is deleted but not what happens afterward: no return value, no confirmation of whether the cascade is reversible, and no note on required permissions or project scoping. Adequate to invoke, thin for predicting consequences.

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 the schema, while id is a bare string. The phrase "an identified motion graphic" loosely maps to id but adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema already states, so the description neither compensates for nor deepens the parameter surface.

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 gives a specific verb ("removes") and a specific resource ("motion graphic"), plus a distinguishing scope detail: the operation also takes its owned sound cues with it. That detail separates it from generic deletion tools, though it never names which sibling to use instead of the many other remove_* / set_motion_graphic tools.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as set_motion_graphic for editing versus removing, or remove_sfx for handling sound cues independently. The only implied guidance is that removing a motion graphic also strips its cues, which the agent must infer is intended rather than configurable.

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