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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: only the allowlist admission is affected and already-registered accounts remain untouched — this is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure an agent needs before a destructive call. It omits whether the action is reversible or what happens if the ID no longer exists (relevant given idempotentHint=false).

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?

Sentences are short, front-loaded, and behaviour-first (what is removed, what survives, when to use it, alternative). The trailing "EN: allowlist, permission, whitelist, code" keyword block is search padding rather than agent-useful content and slightly dilutes an otherwise tight definition.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, non-effect on registered accounts, and the sibling alternative. The notable remaining gap is failure behaviour / permissions, which matters because the operation is explicitly non-idempotent.

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 id parameter already documents its own origin ("aus list_code_allowlist"). The description adds no further detail about the parameter, so this is the standard baseline-3 case where the schema carries the burden.

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 (entfernen/delete) and a specific resource (an entry in a code's allowlist), and explicitly contrasts scope with upload_code_allowlist, which replaces the whole list. An agent can distinguish this from add_code_allowlist_entry and upload_code_allowlist 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?

Gives a clear use case ("Nutze es, um einzelne Adressen zu sperren") and names the alternative for a different intent (bulk replacement via upload_code_allowlist). It stops short of stating when this tool should NOT be used (e.g. blocking a whole domain), but the routing signal is explicit.

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