Remove an approver

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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: nothing executes without confirm: true and there is no server-side dry run, so the confirm flag is a real enforcement gate rather than an optional nicety. It does not say what happens to pending approvals already routed to a removed approver, which keeps it below a 5.

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 short sentences with zero filler: the operation and endpoint come first, followed immediately by the write-safety constraint. Nothing is repeated from the schema beyond what adds meaning.

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 single-parameter delete with no output schema and rich annotations, the definition covers what the agent most needs: the gate flag and the absence of a server-side dry run. It could still state irreversibility and the effect on in-flight approvals, which is the main remaining gap.

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 67%, with confirm and idempotencyKey already documented in the schema; the description reinforces confirm as an execution gate ('not executed unless confirm: true'). The required id parameter carries no description in either place, so the semantics of what identifier is expected (approver id vs. user id) 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Remove an approver') and pins it to an endpoint (DELETE /v1/approvers/{id}), so the agent can distinguish it from approvers_list and approvers_registerSelf. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Remove an approver' and the confirm gate tells the agent how to actually execute, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance, no mention of prerequisites (permissions, whether the approver must be inactive), and no warning about irreversibility.

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