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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the concrete consequence — the site can no longer display the checkout — which is meaningful context beyond the annotation. It does not mention reversibility or permission requirements.

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, each earning its place: action, argument source, and effect. The outcome is front-loaded with no filler or redundancy.

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 mutation with no output schema, the definition covers action, argument provenance, and post-condition, and annotations carry the safety signal. Minor gap only in not stating permissions or whether the removal is reversible.

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 the single id parameter is already documented as coming from swop_list_embed_origins, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description repeats that provenance without adding format or validation detail, which is the expected baseline.

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+resource (remove a website from the checkout embed-allowlist) and ties it to the linked account's checkout, which distinguishes it from sibling mutations like swop_register_embed_origin or swop_remove_link. An agent can identify the effect without inspecting the 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?

Explicitly directs the agent to swop_list_embed_origins as the source of the required id, giving clear provenance for the argument and implying a list-then-remove workflow. It does not state when not to use it or contrast against swop_register_embed_origin, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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