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

Annotations already declare destructive, idempotent, non-read-only and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the removal is queued, the returned status may be a transitional 'unpublishing' state, and the URL only stops forwarding once removal completes. That asynchronous, eventually-consistent semantics is exactly what an agent needs and is not in the 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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the async behavior and then the edge case. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant with the title.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still usefully previews the status values and the no-route edge case, and it discloses the async completion model for a destructive operation. Combined with the annotations covering safety, nothing needed to invoke this correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already explains both 'name' and 'port' fully, including that port selects the route. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the 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 and resource ('Remove a public HTTP route from a Celesto Cloud computer') and immediately scopes it against the closest sibling, cloud_computer_port_publish, by naming the inverse operation. An agent can distinguish this from stop, delete, and port_publish without opening any schema.

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?

Clearly frames the operation as the inverse of publishing and draws the important boundary that it 'does not stop the application inside the computer,' which prevents confusion with cloud_computer_stop. It also notes the no-op case when no active route exists. It stops short of explicitly naming cloud_computer_port_publish as the alternative, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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