remove_mcp_server_tool_approval_route

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. However, the description adds nothing beyond that — no statement about what is destroyed (the approval route only, not the server or tool), required permissions, or effect on in-flight approvals.

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?

It is technically brief, but there is no real content to be concise about; the single phrase duplicates the name/title rather than front-loading useful information. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 destructive two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description should at minimum identify the target resource and the scope of deletion. Rich annotations carry the safety signal, but the text itself leaves behavioral and routing context entirely unstated.

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%, with both mcp_server_id and tool_name clearly documented in the schema itself. Per the rubric, a high-coverage schema sets the baseline at 3 even though the description contributes no parameter detail.

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 'Delete Mcp Server Tool Approval' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and annotation title, providing no additional specification of what deletion means in this context (removing an approval route for a specific tool on a specific MCP server). It is not misleading, but it is tautological rather than clarifying.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as add_mcp_server_tool_approval_route, update_mcp_server_approval_policy_route, or remove_mcp_tool_config_override_route. The agent must infer the invocation context from the name alone.

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