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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description earns credit by adding what annotations cannot: the deletion is cascading (builds and files go too) and is blocked for plans with purchasers. It stops short of saying whether the removal is reversible or what happens to buyers' entitlements.

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, no filler. The scope of destruction is front-loaded ahead of the blocking condition, which is the right ordering for a destructive tool.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cascade effect, and a hard precondition — enough to call it correctly. The only remaining gap is irreversibility/error behavior, which annotations partially signal.

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 50%: the context parameter is fully documented in the schema, but the required `id` parameter carries no description anywhere. The description never mentions which plan identifier is expected or where it comes from, so at moderate coverage it neither compensates nor misleads. Baseline 3 fits.

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?

"Removes one of the user's plans, with its builds and files" states a specific verb plus resource and clarifies the cascade scope, which no sibling name suggests. It is clearly distinct from create_plan/update_plan, though it never names the alternative tools explicitly.

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 line "A plan someone has bought can't be removed" gives a real precondition that tells the agent when the call will fail, which is useful guidance. However, there is no routing advice — nothing says whether a purchased plan should instead be handled via update_plan, discontinue-style flows, or a subscription tool — so usage is only implied.

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