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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need only add context. It adds nothing: it does not say what happens to the graphic's slot/timing, whether the removal is undone by reset_edit, or why destructiveHint is false for a remove operation. With a 50% undocumented schema and a mutation, this is a real gap.

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 tight sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action. It is efficient but also thin — the brevity comes from omission rather than discipline.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and a half-documented two-parameter schema, the definition leaves an agent guessing how to identify the target graphic and what effect removal has on the composition. Given the dense family of similarly named remove_* tools, more disambiguation was needed.

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, but `id` is a bare string with no explanation. The description's 'an identified ... graphic' vaguely gestures at the id parameter but never states what identifier to supply (graphic id vs asset id) or where to obtain it, so it fails to 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Removes') and resource ('renderer-native vector graphic'), which is more precise than a bare name restatement. It does not, however, distinguish itself from neighbouring removal tools such as remove_motion_graphic, remove_editorial_graphic, or set_vector_graphic, so the agent must infer that this applies to graphics created by add_vector_graphic.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the many other remove_* siblings, nor any exclusion or prerequisite (e.g. only for graphics added via add_vector_graphic). The agent is left to infer 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.