remove_allowed_dir

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the core mutating behavior (revoke) and a meaningful side effect (Local Cursor dispatch fails if cwd loses access). This goes beyond a bare statement of purpose, though it omits details like behavior for non-existent paths or idempotency.

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?

Two short sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a genuinely useful consequence rather than repeating the tool name or schema.

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 one-parameter revocation tool, the description covers what the tool does and an important operational consequence. No output schema exists, but for a mutating command this is acceptable; still, a brief note on error behavior would make it fully complete.

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 input schema already fully describes the single parameter with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to do much. It adds mild contextual framing by calling it a 'write directory,' but no new parameter-level details.

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 uses a precise verb/resource pair ('Revoke a previously granted write directory') and clearly differentiates from siblings like add_allowed_dir and list_allowed_dirs by focusing on removal. The consequence clause reinforces what the tool actually does.

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 phrase 'previously granted' makes the usage context clear, and the warning about Local Cursor dispatch failing provides practical guidance about consequences. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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