Add Allowed Well-Known Origin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable local mutation. The description adds only that the mutation is scoped to well-known publishers; it does not describe auth requirements, whether the origin persists across restarts, or any failure behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with an inline example and zero filler. Every element earns its place.

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 configuration tool with a full schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers what is needed to invoke it correctly. It is only slightly thin on the operational context of what acquiring this allowance enables.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented, including the normalization rule (only scheme + host[:port] is stored). The description adds the 'HTTPS' constraint, which the schema itself does not enforce, giving marginal extra value over 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 (add) and resource (an HTTPS origin to the allowed list for well-known publishers), which is clearly distinct from the sibling skill-config-remove-allowed-origin. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the add/remove pairing makes the intent unambiguous.

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 says what it does but never states when to use it versus alternatives, prerequisites, or the effect of adding an origin. The inverse sibling implies the add/remove choice, but no explicit routing guidance or when-not-to-use condition is given.

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