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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new information by naming undo_change as the recovery path, telling the agent the removal is reversible through history. It stops short of explaining whether widget configuration is preserved across the undo.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the action stated first and the recovery note second. Nothing redundant or buried.

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 destructive mutation, the description plus annotations plus a fully documented schema cover what an agent needs to invoke it correctly and understand consequences. Only the exact reversal scope of undo_change is left implicit.

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 100%, with both page and widget_id fully documented including defaults and id examples. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the full burden.

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?

A specific verb and resource ("Remove a widget from the page") that an agent can match to intent immediately. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from near siblings like delete_page or update_widget, but the resource is narrow enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 mention of undo_change implies this is the safe-to-try removal path, which is a useful usage signal. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over update_widget or delete_page, nor any prerequisite about which page the widget lives on.

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