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

The description discloses the return format ('returns the project identity with its result') and the project-scoping behavior, which adds context beyond the annotations. However, there is tension between 'Remove' and destructiveHint: false; the idempotentHint: true makes a reversible/idempotent removal plausible, so the annotations are internally coherent, but the description does not clarify whether removal is irreversible or a soft removal.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler, and the most important scoping constraint is front-loaded with the 'PROJECT-SCOPED' warning. The get_edl pointer is slightly terse but 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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers scoping and return format adequately. But it does not explain failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the voiceover id does not exist) or the effect of repeated removal, which matters given the idempotentHint annotation.

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% — project_id is well documented in the schema, but id has no schema description. The description partially compensates by saying 'by its id (see get_edl),' which tells the agent the id is a voiceover identifier and where to source it. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema but does not fully cover id semantics.

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+resource+identifier: 'Remove one voiceover by its id.' The voiceover resource clearly distinguishes it from sibling removal tools like remove_music, remove_sfx, and remove_overlay. The 'see get_edl' pointer tells the agent exactly where to obtain valid IDs, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 'PROJECT-SCOPED' prefix is a strong usage signal that this call requires an explicit project_id, and the project_id schema description reinforces it: 'Copy the id from list_projects/open_project/project_state; the active-project pointer is never used to guess.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly name excluded alternatives.

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