remove_redirect_uri

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers: it states required roles, the need for confirmation in LIVE mode, and explicitly warns that removing a live URI will immediately break production integrations. This makes the destructive nature and authorization requirements fully transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core action first, then provides environment-specific role requirements, then the warning. Every sentence carries necessary information 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?

The tool is a moderately complex destructive operation with 5 parameters and no output schema, but the description covers the critical call semantics: what is removed, from which environment, who may do it, what confirmation is needed, and the consequence of the action. No additional information is necessary for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the real-world significance of the environment parameter and confirmation requirement, and by clarifying that confirmation becomes mandatory in LIVE mode.

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') with a precise resource ('a redirect URI from an AgeKey application'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is unambiguously distinct from sibling add_redirect_uri, which performs the opposite operation.

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 provides clear context for when the tool applies by distinguishing TEST vs LIVE modes and specifying role requirements for each. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, but the opposite sibling is obvious from the name and the usage context is strong.

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