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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does add genuine behavioral value by revealing the destructive cascade (plates are removed) and the downstream effect (scenes and shots fall back to text only). However, it omits irreversibility, required permissions, and the meaning of the required expectedVersion concurrency token, which are significant gaps for a delete operation.

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 compact sentences, with the destructive action and its blast radius front-loaded. No filler, and the consequence clause earns its place by warning about the fallout.

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 destructive mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is under-specified. It should cover whether deletion is permanent, what happens on a stale expectedVersion, and what error/result to expect, none of which appear.

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% for all three required parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. It never explains projectId, locationId, or – most importantly – expectedVersion, the optimistic-concurrency value whose semantics an agent cannot infer from an untyped integer field.

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 concrete verb and resource ("Remove a location") and states the scope of the cascade ("and its plates"), which clearly separates it from sibling location.* operations like location.update or location.remove_reference. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as location.remove_reference (which detaches a single reference instead of deleting the location) or location.update. The only implicit usage cue is the consequence statement about scenes and shots, which hints at caution but doesn't tell an agent when deletion is the right call.

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