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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behaviors beyond the basic remove operation: idempotency (absent entries are a no-op) and the critical side effect that removing the last entry turns embedding OFF and makes the public embed endpoint 404. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs.

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 three short sentences, with the core purpose first, followed by the idempotency guarantee and the critical side effect. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description plus schema cover the operation, idempotency, side effects, origin normalization, and project ID provenance. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly routing to set_embed_origins for wholesale allowlist replacement, but nothing essential for calling the tool 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%, and both parameters (origin and projectId) already have detailed descriptions covering normalization, source, and mutation target. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove one hostname from the project's embed allowlist.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like add_embed_origin and set_embed_origins. The scope and target are unambiguous.

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 implies usage—use this when you need to remove one hostname from the allowlist—and adds useful idempotency context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like set_embed_origins for replacing the entire allowlist, or add_embed_origin for adding entries. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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