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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: irreversibility, that the journal retains its lines plus a record of the deletion, and the permission requirement ('Members of the project who may write only'). The one gap is the ambiguous 'with its authors' — for a destructive call, whether author records are removed or merely orphaned should be stated unambiguously.

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 sentences, correctly front-loaded with the irreversible warning, but the grammar is elliptical to the point of obscurity ('keeps its lines and one that it was deleted', 'keeps it said'). The agent has to parse garbled prose to extract otherwise valuable information.

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, 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the destructive profile (also in annotations), the cascade, the permission gate, the confirmation requirement, and the sibling alternative. Nothing essential to calling it 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%, with each of id/source/project already documented and cross-referencing each other. The description only hints at identification ('confirm its key with them first') without adding syntax or precedence rules, so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Remove a source from a project's register') and frames it as permanent, which distinguishes it from get_source/list_sources. The qualifying phrase 'with its authors' is ambiguous — it could be read as authors also being removed — so the operation's exact scope isn't fully crisp.

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 an explicit precondition ('do it only when the person asked for this very one to be deleted; confirm its key with them first') and names the correct alternative for the adjacent case: a wrong source should be handled with set_source 'check' 'mismatch' rather than deleted. When-to-use, when-not-to-use and the alternative are all present.

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