Ignore or unignore a remote

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

The description discloses that ignored remotes still fire and that the tool affects logging only. However, with no annotations provided, it lacks details on persistence, side effects, or error handling (e.g., if remote name is invalid). This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: first states the action and method, second provides a prerequisite and behavioral note. No wasted words.

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?

Given the simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and a key behavioral insight. It lacks mention of return values or error handling, but for a toggle tool, this is sufficient.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It reiterates 'by exact name and direction' but does not elaborate on the shouldIgnore parameter or provide examples. A score of 3 is appropriate given the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool ignores/unignores logging for a Roblox remote by exact name and direction, distinguishing it from sibling tools like block-remote. It also mentions a prerequisite (ensure-remote-spy) to set context.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite (ensure-remote-spy) and clarifies that ignored remotes still fire, implying this is for suppressing logs rather than blocking. This provides useful when-to-use guidance, though it could explicitly mention alternatives like block-remote.

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