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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows data is deleted. The description adds a genuinely non-structured behavioral requirement — obtain human confirmation before undoing — which is meaningful for a destructive operation. It still doesn't say whether the removal is reversible or what happens to the mark once deleted, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, 16 words, front-loaded with the operation and its identifier source. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the destructive safety profile is covered by annotations plus the confirmation note. Coverage is nearly complete; only the reversibility/effect of the deletion is left unstated.

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% and the schema already explains skipId as 'The skip or pause to remove,' so the baseline would be 3. The description adds provenance the schema lacks — that the id originates from skip_day, pause_days or summarize_day — which tells the agent which values are valid and where to obtain them.

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 and resource ('Removes a skip or a pause by its id') and goes further by naming the sibling tools that create the ids (skip_day, pause_days, summarize_day). An agent can distinguish this undo tool from skip_day/pause_days without opening any 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?

The source-tool naming implicitly tells the agent this is the undo counterpart to skip_day/pause_days, but there is no explicit 'use this when X, not Y' routing statement or exclusion. The only explicit directive is procedural ('Ask the person first'), which is consent guidance rather than usage routing.

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