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

The destructiveHint annotation already declares this is a destructive operation, so the description's added value is the word 'Permanently', which signals irreversibility beyond the annotation. However, it says nothing about permissions, cascading effects on stream state, or error behavior for missing UUIDs.

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, front-loaded with the action and outcome, with no filler. The REST endpoint mapping is slightly redundant metadata but still useful for orienting an agent.

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 simple two-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers what is removed, from where, and that it is permanent. Only auth and post-removal state are left unaddressed.

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 100%, with both 'stream' and 'destination' documented as UUIDs, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('remove') plus resource ('multistream destination') and scope ('from a stream'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like remove_from_stream_queue, delete_stream, and update_destination. The REST endpoint mapping pins down exactly which operation is performed.

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 purpose implies usage, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over update_destination (e.g., removing vs disabling) or any stated prerequisites. An agent can infer the intent from the name, but the description does not route it against alternatives.

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