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

Despite annotations already marking the tool as destructive and not read-only, the description adds important behavioral detail: references from still-present source text are retained as 'rejected' with keptAsRefused true so saves do not recreate them, while hand-added references with no source text are deleted. It also states the permission requirement, which is valuable context beyond annotations.

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 description is front-loaded with the primary action and keeps to two sentences, though the second sentence is dense and includes several quoted state names. It is appropriately sized for the behavioral complexity but slightly awkward in phrasing.

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 single-parameter mutation with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the needed context: the two removal outcomes, the state consequences, the id source, and the permission requirement. Nothing critical for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the single id parameter is already fully documented. The description repeats that the id comes from list_legal_references, matching the schema rather than adding format or edge-case semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Take a legal reference off an issue or a wiki page'), gives the scope, and points to the sibling list_legal_references as the source of the id. An agent can distinguish this from add_legal_reference and list_legal_references without opening the 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?

It implies when to use the tool by describing the removal action and comparing it to the «Remove» action in the «Legal acts» block, and it names list_legal_references as the id source. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or when to avoid removal, so usage guidance is inferable but not fully spelled out.

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