Remove From Allowlist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for a destructive access-revocation operation. It does not say whether removal is reversible, whether the player must currently be on the allowlist, what error occurs if not, or whether elevated permissions or a running server are required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb, target, and identifying key all appear immediately.

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 with no output schema, the sentence is nearly enough, but the absence of annotations means the description should have covered failure behavior and permission requirements for revoking access.

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 coverage is 50%: the 'name' parameter is documented as 'Player Gamertag' in the schema and the description reinforces that identification is by gamertag, but server_name is undocumented in both places and the description adds no format or scoping detail beyond the schema.

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 (Remove), resource (player), and target collection (server allowlist), plus the identifier type (gamertag). It is clearly the inverse of the sibling add_to_allowlist, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the existence of add_to_allowlist, but the description offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative.

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