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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, yet the description adds what they cannot: dependent product data is destroyed, in-flight/uncertain external operations are protected, no automatic pause occurs, and a lost response leaves state genuinely unknown because status/list calls are not retry receipts. This is exactly the ambiguity-resolution a caller of a non-idempotent destructive tool needs.

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-loaded with the irreversible outcome and dependency deletion; every subsequent sentence carries distinct information (preconditions, protection scope, retry ambiguity). Dense jargon like 'independent lifecycle authority' costs some clarity, but there is 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 destructive two-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, this covers destruction scope, prerequisite authority and token, confirmation separation, protected operations, and post-failure epistemic state. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it 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 already explains both fields (including 'stale snapshots fail'), so the baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds real semantic content: the token is a snapshot of impact, not human assent, and host action confirmation is still required separately — a distinction the schema description does not convey.

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 ('Permanently removes this exact eligible Agent') plus the blast radius ('inspected dependent product data'), and implicitly separates itself from the read-only siblings agent_removal_impact/agent_removal_status/agents_list named later. An agent can identify this as the terminal, mutating step of the removal flow 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?

'Requires independent lifecycle authority and the current agent_removal_impact token' tells the caller the precondition and routes them to the impact tool first. However it never states when *not* to call it or what to do if the eligibility check fails, so the exclusion side is inferred rather than explicit.

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