Settings: cors remove

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses real behavioral traits: the CORS cache is cleared so blocked apps take effect immediately, and an unknown origin is reported as a no-op rather than silently failing. That consequence-level detail is exactly what annotations alone cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its consequence, but there is mild redundancy: the parenthetical '(clears the CORS cache)' is restated in full in the following sentence, which costs a little space.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, side effect, input sourcing, failure behavior, and user-confirmation guidance. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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; the description adds meaning by specifying that the origin must be passed exactly as settings_cors_list shows it and that non-matching values are reported. This clarifies accepted values beyond the schema's format example.

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 (remove) and resource (an allowed origin / CORS allow-list entry), and it does so in a way that distinguishes it from siblings like settings_cors_add and settings_cors_list. An agent can tell immediately what this tool does 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?

It implicitly directs the agent to call settings_cors_list first to obtain the exact origin value and warns to confirm with the user before running a destructive operation. It lacks an explicit when-not framing, but the usage context is clear.

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