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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, readOnly=false, and idempotent=true. The description adds substantial context beyond those annotations: undo within the Working stretch, the detailed Fit report returned, and the settling edge case for unlaid-out Tiles.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the return explanation is a long, densely packed sentence with many layout terms and later settling caveats. The information is useful but not tightly structured, making it overlong rather than crisp.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description usefully explains the return report and settling behavior. However, it leaves the single input parameter semantically undefined and relies on dense prose for a complex result, so it is only partially complete for correct invocation.

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?

There is one required 'note' string parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never clarifies whether it is an ID, title, path, or other identifier. The word 'Note' is the only clue, so the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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?

Front-loads a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a Note from its Workspace.' That verb distinguishes it from siblings such as add_note, update_note, and remove_panel without requiring schema inspection.

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 implies when to use it by saying 'Remove a Note,' but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance relative to update_note or remove_panel. Usage is therefore only implied.

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