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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses exact-match semantics (scheme, port and path must match), the specific failure mode and error code (REDIRECT_URI_NOT_REGISTERED, which even lists the currently registered URIs), and that all other URIs survive. This is materially richer than the readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its non-destructive scoping, followed by failure behavior and cross-references. Dense and largely waste-free, though the trailing get_integration_guide instruction pushes slightly beyond the tool's own semantics.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers the success behavior (only the one URI removed), the error path, and the matching rule for both parameters. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly without inspecting siblings.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning on top: it clarifies that the match is exact including scheme, port and path, and that the value must be exactly what list_redirect_uris shows. It adds nothing for the optional 'app' parameter, keeping it short of a 5.

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 (unregister/remove) and resource (ONE OAuth redirect callback URI on the Bridge app) with explicit scope ('preserving every other registered URI'). It is immediately distinguishable from add_redirect_uri and list_redirect_uris.

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?

Names the counterpart tool ('Use add_redirect_uri to register one') and prescribes a companion call (get_integration_guide with topic=auth) before writing consuming code. It gives clear context for when to reach for it, but never states an explicit when-not or prerequisite condition (e.g. required permissions).

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