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

Given annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, the description adds valuable context about the immediate impact on live traffic and workforce reachability. This goes beyond the structured hints and helps the agent anticipate consequences.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word adds value. There is no filler or repetition of structured data.

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 destructive removal tool, the description is sufficient: it states the action and immediate consequences. With complete schema, annotations, and an output schema, it does not need to explain return values. Minor omissions like prerequisites are not critical given the schema covers 'existing listener port number.'

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not add parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the details and the description's mention of 'port' aligns with portNumber.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove a port listener from a domain') with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_domain_route. The scope is 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 when to use this tool by focusing on port listeners, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The consequence of live traffic stopping provides contextual cues, but no exclusion or alternative guidance is given.

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