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 description earns credit for what it adds beyond them: the hidden-Tile exclusion, the user-undo path, and a detailed account of the Fit report returned. The report text is dense but discloses real post-mutation state, including the settling-Tile edge case where oneColumn is omitted.

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 removal action and its constraint are front-loaded correctly, but more than half the text is a run-on sentence enumerating Fit-report fields in heavy jargon ("settling", "Working stretch", "leave their Tile's width unused"). It is informative but not efficiently structured.

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 destructive one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the safety story (undo, hidden-Tile restriction) and the return payload in unusual depth. The only material omission is what the `panel` argument actually identifies.

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 0% for the single required `panel` string, and the description says nothing about what value it expects — an ID, a name, or a handle — or whether it must belong to the current Workspace. With the schema carrying no semantics at all, the description should have compensated and does not.

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?

The first clause states a specific verb and resource ("Remove a Panel from its Workspace") and adds a real constraint that a hidden Tile can't be removed, which an agent cannot infer from the name. It is clearly distinct from add_panel and update_panel by virtue of the verb, though it never names those siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: the parenthetical about hidden Tiles rules out one case, and the undo note suggests when removal is acceptable. There is no explicit statement of when to remove vs. update_panel or hide, and no prerequisites such as required permissions.

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