remove_mcp_tool_config_override_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. However, the description adds nothing beyond the name — it does not explain what gets deleted, whether the operation can be undone, or what happens after removal. Given the annotations carry significant weight, the description's lack of additional behavioral context is a clear gap.

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 a single short phrase with no wasted words, but it is so minimal that it fails to front-load any useful context. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of informativeness.

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, idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the description is essentially just a title. It does not explain the effect of the deletion, required permissions, or side effects. An agent would need to infer behavior entirely from the name and annotations.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (tool_name and mcp_server_id). The description adds no parameter details, which is the baseline expectation when the schema already does the work.

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 restates the tool name as a human-readable phrase ('Delete Mcp Tool Configuration Override'), which identifies the verb and resource but adds no specificity beyond what the name already conveys. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like update_mcp_tool_config_override_route or get_mcp_tool_config_override_route.

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 alternatives such as update_mcp_tool_config_override_route or get_mcp_tool_config_override_route. No context about prerequisites or scenarios is provided.

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