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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description still adds real value beyond them: the removal propagates to the calendar, the profile and Settings → Availability, is permanent, and the response retains the input needed to re-create the block — a concrete recovery path. It omits error behavior for a bad id and any ownership/permission requirements.

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?

Three tight sentences: identity and scope first, then the blast radius of the deletion, then permanence plus recoverability. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, yet the description usefully flags that the output can re-create the block. For a one-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

A single fully documented parameter (schema coverage 100%) whose meaning the description only restates ('by id (from availability.read)'). With the schema already carrying the semantics, the baseline of 3 applies; no extra format or validation detail is added.

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 ('Remove ... time off or focus blocks') along with the lookup key ('by id'), and scopes it to 'the user's own' blocks. That scope plus the explicit pointer to availability.read distinguishes it cleanly from availability.create and availability.read.

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?

Names availability.read as the source of the id, which effectively routes the agent to the sibling that must run first. It also implies a restriction to the caller's own blocks, but it does not explicitly state what to do for someone else's block or what happens with an unknown id.

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