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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the call is project-scoped and returns the project identity with its result, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior for non-existent ids or edge cases, though the annotations mitigate this. It adds some context beyond annotations but not a rich behavioral narrative.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states scope and purpose, the second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the most critical information (project-scoped) and avoids redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 removal tool, the description covers the essential points: what it removes, how to identify the item, project scope, and what it returns. The annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness. The only minor gap is not specifying behavior if the id doesn't exist, but this is negligible given the simplicity and the reference to get_edl.

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 description compensates by telling the user to see get_edl for the id, and provides detailed guidance on project_id, stating it is an 'immutable scope' and how to copy it from list_projects/open_project/project_state. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, especially for the undocumented 'id' parameter.

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 the verb 'remove' and the resource 'one background-music item by its id'. It distinguishes itself from other remove_* tools by specifying it targets music and references get_edl for finding the id. The phrase 'cut the music entirely or before re-adding it with a different range' further clarifies its purpose without ambiguity.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('to cut the music entirely or before re-adding it with a different range') and directs the user to get_edl for obtaining the id. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but for a removal tool, the usage context is clear. The project-scoped note also helps in guiding appropriate use.

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