browser_disallow_host

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the core effect (removing a host from the allowlist) but does not disclose behaviors such as what happens if the host is not in the allowlist, whether matching is case-sensitive, whether changes take effect immediately, or if the mutation is reversible. This lack of detail for a mutation tool is a significant gap.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundancy. It states the action and target effectively, making it appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool's simplicity, the description provides the core functionality, but it omits important contextual details such as behavior when the host is not allowed, host format expectations, and the relationship to browser_allow_host. With no annotations and no output schema, the description alone is insufficient for full understanding, especially for a mutation tool.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only says 'a host' without specifying format (e.g., 'example.com' vs 'https://example.com'), exact match requirements, or whether wildcards are allowed. The parameter semantics are entirely left to the user's inference.

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's function: 'Remove a host from the navigation allowlist.' It uses a specific verb (Remove) and resource (host), and the context (navigation allowlist) distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_allow_host (which would add) and browser_list_allowed (which lists).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., browser_allow_host). It does not mention that this is the inverse of allowing a host, nor does it clarify scenarios where removal is appropriate (e.g., blocking previously allowed hosts). The description only states the action without usage context.

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