Remove Allowed GitHub Org

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description merely restates the removal action and adds nothing beyond the structured fields, e.g. what happens if the org is not in the list or whether the scope is global.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action and target. It is not under-specified so much as terse.

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 one-parameter config mutation with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The annotations carry the mutation semantics and the output schema carries the return shape, so little is missing, but the description does nothing to help route between it and its origin sibling.

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 'org' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond it, so the schema does all the work - the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 GitHub organization from the allowed list.' An agent knows what it does. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling skill-config-remove-allowed-origin, which removes an origin rather than an org - a distinction the description leaves implicit.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of the sibling add/remove tools or which one applies. The removal context is only implied by the name and sibling set.

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