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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description goes further: it discloses the project scoping requirement, that the active-project pointer is never used to guess, and the key side effect that graphics naming a removed definition are detached rather than destroyed. That side-effect detail is the most valuable content here and directly explains why destructiveHint=false is plausible.

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 dense sentences, with the project-scoped constraint and return-identity note front-loaded before the operational detail. Every clause carries information; the sentence structure is slightly cramped but not padded.

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 scope, side effects, id-class semantics, and the fact that project identity is returned. Nothing critical is missing; error/partial-failure behavior is the only notable omission.

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 well documented inline, but ids has no schema description. The description compensates by enumerating what ids may contain and the divergent behavior per id class, which the schema does not convey. Marginal return only, since it doesn't cover array format or limits.

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?

States a specific verb (Remove) plus two distinct resources it operates on: world definitions (track/object/plane/light ids) and graphic detach (motion ids). That granularity distinguishes it from the many other remove_* siblings that target graphics, effects, or text. It stops short of naming a sibling it is not, so 4 rather than 5.

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 tells the agent which id types trigger which behavior (track/object/plane/light ids remove definitions; motion ids detach graphics), which is effectively usage routing by argument. However, it never states when to prefer this over related world tools (look_at_world, place_in_world) or when not to call it. Implied usage only.

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