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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: it bounds the destruction to one published URL and confirms the underlying service and its other URLs survive, which is exactly the blast-radius question an agent has for a destructive tool. It stops short of saying whether the removal is reversible (re-exposing) or what happens with an unknown endpoint id.

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 short sentences, action first, then scope, then blast radius — well front-loaded with no filler. Minor cost: "from briq_status" is opaque phrasing that could be read as a status registry or as the sibling tool name.

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 destructive tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description covers the effects but leaves real gaps: the briq identifier's meaning/format, behavior on an invalid endpoint id, and whether the URL can be republished via briq_expose. Adequate but not sufficient for correct invocation on its own.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains "endpoint" as the endpoint id to remove, but the required "briq" parameter is never defined anywhere — the word "briq" appears only inside "briq_status," which is a different sense and may even confuse. Half the parameters remain undocumented.

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 one HTTP URL by its endpoint id") and scopes it to a single endpoint rather than the whole service. It implicitly distinguishes itself from briq_destroy/briq_stop via "The service keeps running," but never names briq_expose as its inverse, so pairing is left to inference.

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 blast-radius sentences ("service keeps running on its private network," "Other URLs keep working") imply this is the partial-scope removal and not a teardown, which is useful implied usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use clause and no sibling tool (briq_expose, briq_destroy) is named as the alternative for a different effect.

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