Remove a single Drawing object by id

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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the registry lookup, pcall-guarded :Remove() call, type guard on the Drawing table, the clearing of the registry slot, and distinct return shapes for unknown id and missing-executor cases. Annotations only cover the safety profile, so this adds substantial value.

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 with the core action and use case, then supporting detail. It carries some metadata boilerplate (phase, cost, capabilities, produces, verify-with) that partly duplicates structured fields, keeping it from being maximally tight.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully covers return values ({ id, removed } / { removed = false, error } / { error }) and prerequisites (Drawing availability, approval), leaving no gap for a mutating 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description restates the signature (id required, threadContext/timeoutMs optional) but adds no new semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 (Destroys/Remove) and resource (one Drawing overlay created by draw-create), and clarifies the exact mechanism. It is clearly distinguishable from draw-clear (all) and list-drawings (read).

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?

Explicitly says to use it to clean up a single ESP element while leaving the rest of the overlay intact, which implies the contrast with draw-clear. It gives clear context, though it does not name the sibling alternative outright.

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