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

The description adds the key behavioral fact that this operation is 'record-only; nothing runs', which communicates that it does not execute code or have side effects on the environment. This goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by clarifying the mutation is restricted to a record. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the action and resource, and ends with the critical behavioral note. No redundant words or repetition; every part adds value.

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?

The tool is simple (two required parameters) and the description covers the core operation and its non-execution nature. Since there is no output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It is adequate for a record-only update, though it lacks details on error behavior or what happens if a package doesn't exist, which are minor given the simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives context for the 'packages' parameter by mentioning 'npm packages', but it does not explain 'projectId' at all. The description provides only a partial hint about parameters, insufficient for an agent to correctly construct inputs without external knowledge.

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 ('Remove'), a resource ('npm packages from a Floot project's dependency record'), and implies a domain (Floot project). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling add_dependency by the verb and context. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

The description mentions 'record-only; nothing runs' which is a usage caveat indicating safety, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'use this instead of edit_file'). The purpose is clear from the name and sibling context, but explicit guidance on condition of use is missing.

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