remove_alias_entry

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

Goes meaningfully beyond the annotations, which only say readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=false. The description adds reversibility via undo, that prior entries are captured before the change, a risk=medium label, and a dry-run preview path. It does not state auth requirements or what happens when the entry is absent, so it stops short of a 5. Note the mild tension between 'reversible' and destructiveHint=true, though these are not contradictory (the removal destroys state until undone).

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?

Front-loaded with the [WRITE][risk=medium] tag and the core action, then a compact Args block. Slightly redundant in stating dry-run preview twice (prose line and arg line), which keeps it from a 5.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: scope of change, reversibility, prior-state capture, and a preview option. Missing edge-case behavior (entry not found, partial failure) and return shape, but nothing critical blocks correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description carries the full parameter burden and does so for all four: name (source: list_aliases), entry (the host/network/port), dry_run (preview semantics), target (firewall target from config, omit for default). It doesn't specify entry formats or target naming conventions, leaving a small gap.

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 and resource: 'Remove one entry from an alias.' This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling add_alias_entry and from alias_entries (which reads). An agent can select it without opening 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?

Gives practical routing cues: the alias name comes 'from list_aliases', target comes 'from config', and dry_run previews the change. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions (e.g., when to prefer a broader alias rewrite over per-entry removal), but the context is clear enough to act on.

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