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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: immediate effect ('link stops working at once'), data retention ('notes are kept'), irreversibility ('for good'), and an authorization prerequisite ('Owner or office only'). It stops short of stating what happens on a bad/unknown id or whether existing records referencing the sub are affected.

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?

Two tight sentences; the permanence and immediate-effect facts are front-loaded and each clause (notes kept, permission requirement) adds distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers permanence, blast radius (link dies), data retention, and permissions. The remaining gap is the ambiguous job-scope and identifier meaning, which matters for a destructive tool.

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?

The single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not: it never explains that subcontractor_id is the UUID of the sub, nor whether removal is scoped to one job. The phrase 'off a job' actively raises a job-scope question the schema cannot answer.

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 (remove) and resource (subcontractor) plus the permanence qualifier 'for good', which distinguishes it from a soft update via subs_update. It does not name any sibling explicitly, and 'off a job' hints at job scoping that the schema does not actually carry.

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?

Implied usage: remove rather than update, and only for owners/office staff. There is no explicit 'use X instead when...' guidance against subs_update or subs_list, so the agent must infer the boundary from the word 'for good'.

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