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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the return payload (removed guest's id and name), the age-eligibility gate, and the auth/membership requirement.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and its target, followed by eligibility and auth constraints. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states what is returned (id and name), and it covers auth prerequisites and eligibility for a destructive single-entity operation. Only the absence of any alternative-tool routing keeps it from full completeness.

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 guest_id and wedding_id are already documented, including the conditional 'required when the account has multiple weddings' note. The description adds no format or selection detail beyond the schema, 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+resource ('Removes an identified guest') scoped to 'the selected wedding', and distinguishes itself from siblings like remove_my_accommodation, remove_my_event, and remove_my_place by naming the guest entity. It also adds the eligibility boundary (13+, confirmed age), which further narrows the operation.

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 clear when-not conditions: guests under 13 or with unconfirmed ages are ineligible, and the caller must be signed in with an Aisle membership. It does not, however, name the alternative tools (e.g., update_my_guest for edits, list_my_guests for lookup), so routing guidance stops short of the top tier.

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