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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that published cubes are permanent public property and that there is no author retract path, plus a 10+ character reason requirement. However, it does not explain what the court does with the request, what a successful request produces, authentication requirements, or whether the request is public or reviewable.

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 description is tightly front-loaded: action and endpoint first, then the critical permanence constraint, then parameter semantics. Every clause carries useful information with no filler.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation/request tool, the description covers invocation well: endpoint, grounds, reason format, and the no-retract constraint. It is incomplete regarding the court process and what the agent should expect after submitting, which matters for a request that initiates a legal action.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines the full ground enum (personal_data | secret | harmful | illegal | legal_claim) and clarifies that reason should state 'what exactly' with a 10+ character minimum. cube_id is not described, but its meaning is self-evident.

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 names a specific verb and resource — 'Ask the court to remove a published cube' — and the endpoint reinforces the action. It also distinguishes this from direct author retraction by noting that published cubes are permanent public property with no author retract.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: published cubes cannot be retracted by the author, so removal must go through the court. It also enumerates valid grounds. It stops short of explicitly naming when-not-to-use or comparing against alternatives like court_case.

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