Remove spam blacklist entry

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description still adds value: it tells the agent to confirm with the user before calling, and warns that the lists are account-wide so a removal is not scoped to the given domain. It does not say what happens if the entry is absent, which is why it stops at 4.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, followed by the ownership caveat and the safety directive. No filler.

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?

No output schema and no annotations on return behavior, but for a delete operation the description covers scope, prerequisites, and the destructive-action guidance an agent needs. Minor gap: it doesn't state behavior when the entry doesn't exist (idempotency semantics).

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to the 'domain' parameter: it is a domain you own used to authorize the call, while the list itself is account-wide. That clarifies an otherwise confusing ownership/scope split the schema does not express.

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 ('Removes') plus resource and scope ('an entry from the account-wide spam blacklist'), which cleanly separates it from remove_spam_whitelist_entry and the other remove_* siblings. An agent can identify the operation 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 clear context for invocation: the domain must be owned by the caller and the user should be consulted before calling. It does not name an alternative or explain when removal is inappropriate versus, say, updating spam settings, so it falls short of the explicit alternatives required for a 5.

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