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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower, but the description pays it off by disclosing the crucial nuance that the film is not erased — it moves to the bin with its earlier versions and stays restorable via restore_film. It also flags the confirmation contract and that the response carries a retention window, which the agent cannot infer from any structured field.

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, front-loaded with the action and then the confirmation requirement, with no filler. The phrasing "the user's word first" is slightly colloquial where "explicit user consent" would be unambiguous, but nothing is wasted.

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 compensates by telling the agent what the response contains (the retention period) and how to undo the action. Combined with the confirmation contract, nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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% and the schema already explains both name (prj_… id, see list_films) and confirm (must be true, say so only after the user agreed). The description's "needs confirm: true, and the user's word first" re-states the schema rather than adding syntax or format detail, so 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?

"Take a film off the user's account" states a specific verb (remove) and a specific resource (film), and the sibling delete_piece is implicitly ruled out by naming the resource explicitly. The mention of restore_film as the inverse further pins down what class of operation this is.

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 real preconditions (confirm: true, and the user's agreement must come first) and names restore_film as the alternative path that reverses it. It stops short of explicit "when not to use" guidance such as preferring edit_film or rename_film for non-removal changes.

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