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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. But it adds nothing beyond them: it doesn't say what state the removed effect leaves behind, whether the change is undoable, or what happens if the id does not name a stylize effect. For a mutation tool this is thin.

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 or repetition. It is efficiently sized; the problem is under-specification rather than verbosity.

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 destructive-adjacent mutation with two required parameters, no output schema, and an undocumented `id`, the description is not complete enough – an agent cannot tell what value to pass for `id` or what to expect after the call.

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 only 50% – project_id is documented in the schema, but the required `id` parameter has no description at all. The description could have clarified that `id` is the stylize effect identifier and where to obtain it (project_state, get_editorial_map), but it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Removes an identified stylization effect" states a clear verb and resource, and the name pairs it obviously with the sibling add_stylize. However, "identified" is doing vague work – it never says the effect is identified by an `id` parameter, so the sentence is only minimally more informative than the tool name.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite stated (e.g. that a stylize effect must already exist on the timeline), and no mention of alternatives such as reset_edit or the related remove_* siblings. The agent must infer the usage entirely from the name.

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