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 behavioral context: existing booked appointments are preserved, and the action is irreversible and requires user confirmation.

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 short sentences, each earning its place, with the destructive action and its side effect front-loaded before the confirmation instruction.

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 single-required-param delete with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers the key unknowns: what is removed, what survives, and irreversibility. Only the return shape (whether anything is returned) is unaddressed, which is a minor omission.

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 serviceId, workspaceId, and idempotencyKey are all documented in the schema itself. The description's mention that serviceId comes from get_booking_settings only repeats the schema text, adding no new semantic detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a service from the booking page'), scoping it to booking services rather than resources or settings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby delete_booking_resource or update_booking_service, but the resource and target are unambiguous.

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?

Gives a real prerequisite ('serviceId from get_booking_settings') and a procedural guardrail ('confirm with the user first'). It stops short of naming alternatives, e.g. deactivating or updating the service when the user actually wants to hide rather than delete it.

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