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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the Pro-account prerequisite, atomicity ('If any id is not on the slide, nothing is removed'), what is preserved ('the slide, its slots and the other objects stay'), the return shape, and the full error set. This is unusually complete for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then scope, then atomicity, then return, then errors. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 4-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, return values, and error handling. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 75% and the undocumented 'ids' param is covered by the description's 'by id' and atomicity note; 'expected_version' is indirectly explained via 'the new version' and the conflict guidance. It adds real meaning over the schema, though it could state the 1-50 id bound explicitly.

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 (remove) and resource (objects from a slide) scoped by id, and explicitly carves out what it does NOT handle (slides and templates are deleted on the web). This cleanly separates it from add_objects/update_objects and from slide/template mutations.

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 explicit when-not routing ('slides and templates are deleted on the web') and prescribes a recovery path for the conflict error ('read again with get_template and retry'). An agent knows both the boundary and the retry procedure without inference.

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