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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and non-read-only. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the listener reverts to platform defaults, and on 443 with http/http2 the platform re-injects a default TLS block. These details go beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and a concise note about the 443 edge case. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundant or ambiguous wording.

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?

The description fully explains the operation's effect (revert to defaults) and an important platform-specific behavior (re-injection on 443). Combined with the rich schema descriptions and presence of an output schema, no critical contextual gaps remain for a tool of this complexity.

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 each parameter (org, domain, portNumber) has its own detailed description, including guidance on org lookup behavior. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific details, so the schema carries the burden effectively. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Remove the TLS configuration from a port listener'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like remove_domain_port (which removes the whole listener) and set_domain_tls (which adds/updates TLS). The phrase 'the listener reverts to platform defaults' clarifies the scope.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use: clearing TLS from a listener, and includes an explicit caveat for port 443 with http/http2 where TLS cannot be disabled but only reset. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like remove_domain_port or set_domain_tls, so it misses a direct when-not-to-use comparison.

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