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

Annotations already cover the destructive/idempotent profile, yet the description adds substantial beyond them: guest assignments are removed too, payment history is retained, sign-in and an Aisle membership are required, and specific payment/checkout states block the operation. That is exactly the side-effect and precondition detail an agent 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?

The operation is front-loaded in the first sentence, with safeguards, preconditions, and retention behavior following in tight, information-dense sentences. No filler or restated name/title content.

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, no-output-schema tool the description covers preconditions, auth, and side effects well. It stops short of describing the confirmation/error surface after a removal attempt, which is the one remaining detail an agent might want.

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 both wedding_id and accommodation_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the notion of an 'identified room' in a 'selected wedding' and does not supplement formats or edge cases, so 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?

States a specific verb (Removes) and resource (an identified room and its guest assignments) scoped to the selected wedding. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling removal tools like remove_my_event and remove_my_guest, and from update_my_accommodation.

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 concrete blocking conditions (uncharged checkouts without a payment method need confirmed cancellation; completed/refunded/processing payments and active card checkouts prevent removal). It clearly frames when the tool will and will not succeed, though it never names an alternative tool for the blocked cases.

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