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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the mutation and safety profile. The description adds context that the call is project-scoped and returns the project identity, which is not in annotations. This is useful additional behavioral information without contradicting the annotations.

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 the project-scoping note front-loaded. It delivers the key action, scope, and source of the id without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding how to call the tool.

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 essential information: what it removes, how to scope it, and where to get the id. It does not discuss error handling or edge cases, but these are not required given the tool's simplicity and the annotations that cover safety.

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 adds a hint that id is obtained from get_edl, but does not specify its format or additional constraints. It does not fully compensate for the undocumented id parameter, but the hint is a small addition. A score of 3 reflects moderate compensation for a 50% coverage baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('one overlay by its id'), and clarifies it is project-scoped. This clearly distinguishes it from other remove_* tools, which target different resources, and from add_overlay/move_overlay. The reference to get_edl for the id further anchors its purpose.

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 explicit guidance on the project_id parameter: that it must be copied from specific sources and that the active-project pointer is never used. It also tells the user to consult get_edl for the overlay id. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like remove_sfx or remove_text, but the resource specificity makes usage obvious.

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