Remove an employer I added

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the deletion cascades to postings, removal is confined to the local index, and it enumerates the failure mode (ERR_NOT_USER_ADDED). Return format isn't described, but that is minor here.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact Args block that only documents the one parameter. No filler; the error code is embedded usefully rather than padded.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with an existing annotation set and no output schema, the description covers scope, cascade effects, and the failure case well enough to call correctly. The only minor gap is what happens on success (confirmation vs. silent).

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 coverage is 0% (the parameter is a bare 'string' titled Company), so the description carries the full load and does so: it accepts the company_id returned by add_employer or any part of the employer's name, clarifying both the value source and fuzzy-match behavior.

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) plus resource (an employer and its postings) and narrows scope to 'this machine's index' versus the public index. The reference to add_employer and the ERR_NOT_USER_ADDED condition makes the boundary unambiguous relative to the closest sibling.

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 an explicit when-not: employers in the public index cannot be removed this way, with the error code. It names the counterpart tool add_employer implicitly by scoping to user-added employers, though it doesn't route to other alternatives for the public-index case.

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