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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent), the description discloses the 'must keep at least one skill' invariant and the optimistic concurrency behavior where a stale source_stage version yields 409. This adds meaningful operational context without contradicting any annotation.

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 sentences, action verb front-loaded, each sentence adds essential information: the core operation, the invariant, and the concurrency parameter. No filler or redundancy.

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 delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential details: what is deleted, the invariant, and the concurrency guard. It does not explicitly state the error for violating the at-least-one-skill rule, but the constraint itself is sufficient for an agent to infer the risk.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explicitly meaning the ids parameter ('by id') and detailing the source_stage object with its stage and version fields, including the consequence of staleness. It leaves the standard action/resource/request_id params to the schema, which is acceptable as they are self-evident.

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 description uses the specific verb 'Delete' with the resource 'draft job skills' and clarifies the operation is by id, distinguishing it from siblings like clear_job_skills (bulk removal) and update_skills. The at-least-one-skill constraint adds further precision about scope.

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 usage: call this to remove specific skills by id from a draft. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as clear_job_skills or update_skills, and no exclusions or decision rules are provided. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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