Remove host

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive and non-read-only, but the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: the failure mode for manual-config hosts, the default known_hosts cleanup, and the implicit trace cleanup. It doesn't mention permissions, reversibility, or confirmation requirements.

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 lines, front-loaded with the core action before the scope restriction and default behavior. No filler sentences, though the line breaks read more like notes than a structured description.

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 destructive three-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the key caveat (server-managed entries only) and default side effect. Remaining gaps are the drop_secret option and any distinction from forget_host.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains alias, drop_secret, and forget_known. The description only indirectly gestures at forget_known via 'By default also cleans known_hosts' and never mentions the drop_secret option, so it adds little beyond the schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a host from the managed file') and immediately scopes the blast radius ('Touches only entries added by the server'). It stops short of naming how it differs from the sibling forget_host, which appears to overlap with the known_hosts cleanup mentioned here.

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 an explicit applicability constraint: only entries added by the server can be removed, and a manual-config host is an error. This effectively functions as a when-not clause. It does not, however, route the agent between this tool and the similar-sounding forget_host sibling.

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