Remove an endpoint from an endpoint group

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds non-obvious behavioral details: the use of a POST with a body array simulating DELETE due to no native DELETE verb, which is critical for understanding how the operation works.

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: first states the purpose, second provides essential technical implementation detail. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 that an output schema exists and all parameters are documented, the description adds the crucial implementation detail about the POST body format and lack of DELETE endpoint. It could mention the destructive nature or confirmation requirements, but the schema already includes a 'confirm' parameter.

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 schema already describes each parameter. The description does not add additional semantics beyond mentioning the URL pattern with org, group, and endpoint, but it does not elaborate on specific parameter constraints or formats.

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 tool name and description clearly state the action: removing a single endpoint from an endpoint group. The description specifies the HTTP method and endpoint, and the sibling tool list includes a corresponding add tool, providing clear differentiation.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like action1_add_endpoint_to_group or when not to use it. It only describes the HTTP mechanics, lacking usage context or prerequisites.

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