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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that this is a soft delete (the record 'stays in the history with who removed it and why'), that the material stops counting, and that a field worker can only remove their own entries. It does not say whether the removal is reversible/restorable or what happens on a permission violation, leaving some mutation semantics unstated.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the effect, then the authorization caveat. No filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations, the description covers the essential risk profile (soft delete, audit trail, per-user scoping), and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. Only edge cases such as error behavior or restoration are absent.

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 0%, so both parameters are undocumented in the schema; the description partially compensates by implying that a reason ('why') is recorded, which maps to the optional `reason` field. It never names `material_id` explicitly, nor mentions the 500-character limit or that `reason` is optional, so half the parameter surface remains ambiguous.

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 ('Remove a recorded material') and qualifies the scope with the legitimate reasons for removal (recorded in error or returned). The soft-delete framing makes it trivially distinguishable from materials_update and materials_list without inspecting 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?

The parenthetical 'recorded in error or returned' tells the agent exactly when this tool applies, and the last sentence defines who may invoke it for which records. It does not explicitly name an alternative (e.g. use materials_update to correct a material instead of removing it), which keeps it below a 5.

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