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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does well: it clarifies that removal is non-destructive to the media asset and pins the behavior to a concrete REST endpoint (DELETE /api/v1/streams/{stream}/queues/{type}/{mediaId}). It stops short of describing return values or queue-position side effects, but for a single-item removal that is a minor gap.

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, front-loaded with the action and identifier semantics, followed by the non-deletion clarification and endpoint mapping. No filler.

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 no output schema, the description still covers the key call-time facts: identifier semantics, queue-type meaning, non-destructive scope, and endpoint mapping. Only the response shape and any ordering side effects on the remaining queue are unaddressed, which is acceptable for this operation.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine disambiguation beyond the schema by explaining that mediaId is a media UUID for storage queues but an item id for external-videos. That resolves the one ambiguity an agent would otherwise hit when the type enum is 'external-videos'.

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), resource (item from a stream queue), and the identifier semantics, and explicitly separates itself from deletion of the underlying media file. That distinction is what distinguishes it from sibling delete_media, and the add_to_stream_queue / reorder_stream_queue siblings are implicitly excluded by 'remove one item'.

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 description gives clear context for when the tool applies (removing a single queue entry) and explicitly notes what it does NOT do ('The media file itself is not deleted'), which steers an agent away from delete_media. It does not, however, spell out when to prefer this over reorder_stream_queue or how it interacts with queue state.

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