Draw remove story

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say what happens to dependent geometry, walls, or doors when a story is removed, nor whether confirmation is required.

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 core sentence is short and front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, the appended '[bulc-mcp rules] EVAC-001, GEO-002 — bulc_knowledge_search' fragment is noise that does not belong in a tool description and hurts density.

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 simple one-parameter destructive delete with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented parameter, the essentials are present. It falls short of complete because no side effects or preconditions for removing a story are described and the stray rules line distracts.

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% and the single required id parameter is documented as 'Story ID to remove'. The description adds no format, type, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so this is the baseline 3.

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: removing a building story, identified by ID. It is clearly distinguishable from draw_add_story, draw_update_story, and draw_list_stories, though it does not explicitly name those siblings. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative story tools. The trailing bracketed line appears to be template/rule leakage rather than actionable usage instruction, so it does not compensate.

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