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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden and does it well: it explains that only ownership/authority/slot disappear, that retained readings persist until retention, that the device continues sending, and that the answer includes a `remover` crontab command. This goes far beyond a generic 'deletes a collection.'

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 first sentence is front-loaded, but the remaining sentences are long, metaphorical, and repetitive ('stands on its own there', 'which is why the answer carries remover'), making it harder to parse than necessary. Several clauses could be condensed without losing meaning.

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?

Despite lacking annotations and an output schema, the description covers the key practical concerns: what is deleted, what survives, what still happens afterward, and the relevant remover output. The only notable gaps are the precise response shape and how `ativa:false` is invoked, but the one-parameter tool and rich side-effect narrative make it largely complete.

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?

The schema already describes `id` completely (signed 22-character symbol or legacy UUID) with 100% coverage, so the bar is baseline 3. The description adds narrative about the symbol being signed and standing on its own, but does not clarify parameter syntax, defaults, or validation beyond the schema.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb and object ('Removes one measurement') and clarifies the ownership/slot effects, so an agent can tell this is a destructive collection-level operation. However, it never explicitly names the resource as a 'collection' and doesn't reference sibling delete tools, leaving some differentiation to the name and schema.

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 explicitly tells the agent when NOT to use this tool: 'Use ativa:false instead when you only want to stop looking.' It also implies the appropriate use case is permanent ownership removal rather than merely hiding data. But 'ativa:false' is not a named sibling tool, so the alternative is less actionable than it could be.

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