Remove a word from a banned-words list

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

Annotations already convey that the operation is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds scope detail (global vs. style-specific) but doesn't explain consequences like whether the word is immediately allowed or what happens if the word isn't banned. No contradiction with annotations, but little extra behavioral depth.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, resource, scope, and optionality. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 two-parameter mutation tool without an output schema, the description plus schema provide enough information to invoke correctly. It could mention that removing a ban is idempotent or what happens upon success, but given the low complexity, the current info is nearly complete.

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 descriptions cover both parameters fully (word and styleId, with styleId referencing list_styles and global omission). The tool description adds no new parameter meaning beyond echoing 'global, or a specific style's list.' With 100% schema coverage, this meets the baseline of 3.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('term from this installer's banned-words list'), and clearly distinguishes the scope ('global, or a specific style's list'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like add_banned_word and remove_custom_word, making the purpose 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 gives clear context: it is for removing a banned word, with optional style scoping. It implies the agent should use this when unbanning a term, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for custom words, use remove_custom_word'). Still, the context is sufficient for correct selection.

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