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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new context beyond them: irreversibility, no restore path, the downstream consequence that a deleted term may be re-proposed while a rejected one is remembered, and the write-permission requirement. This is exactly the extra layer annotations cannot convey.

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?

The permanence warning is front-loaded, the confirmation requirement follows, and the sibling alternative comes last as a redirect. Three dense clauses, no filler, each carrying operational weight.

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 one-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers danger, precondition, alternative route, and authorization. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely or 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 100% and there is a single required 'id' parameter, whose schema description already tells the agent it comes from list_terms. The description adds no format, type, or resolution guidance beyond that, so the 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Remove a term from its project") plus its permanence, and explicitly contrasts with the sibling set_term in 'rejected' state. An agent can distinguish permanently deleting a term from rejecting a proposed one without opening either schema.

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-to-use (only when the person asked for this very term), a precondition (confirm the name first), and a named alternative with its condition (to decline a PROPOSED term, use set_term with state 'rejected'). Both the positive and negative routing are stated.

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