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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's job is to add nuance beyond that. It does so thoroughly: it reveals idempotency, the no-op behavior for absent entries, the consequence of removing the last entry (embedding turned OFF, endpoint 404s), and the real-world effect on the referenced website. This goes well beyond the annotations and gives the agent a complete picture of what happens.

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?

The description is exceptionally tight: one sentence states the core purpose, one sentence covers idempotency, one sentence covers the destructive edge case, and one sentence gives a real-world consequence. Each clause earns its place, and the reference link is appended without clutter. It is front-loaded and easily scannable.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and annotations covering destructiveness, the description is complete. It covers the operation, edge cases, and consequences. The output schema handles return-value documentation, and the schema descriptions cover parameter provenance. Nothing an agent needs 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 coverage is 100% and the parameter descriptions are already rich: origin explains normalization and its relationship to add_embed_origin; projectId explains it's a UUID from list_projects/create_project and that it selects the project to mutate. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies. No deduction is needed since the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Remove one hostname from the project's embed allowlist.' It states exactly what the tool does and implicitly distinguishes it from related tools like add_embed_origin and set_embed_origins by focusing on a single removal. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 provides important contextual guidance: it notes idempotency (removing a non-existent entry is a no-op) and the critical side effect that removing the last entry disables embedding. It also warns about the downstream effect on the website. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when to use them, the side-effect warnings effectively guide safe usage. This is strong usage guidance for a simple removal operation.

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