Remove allowed site

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds the context annotations cannot: saved captures are NOT deleted, only the rule is, and overlapping rules may still allow the same host. It also discloses the return payload (normalized pattern plus whether a rule was removed), consistent with the idempotent hint.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then routing, then consequences. Nothing is redundant and every sentence carries distinct information.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, what is and isn't destroyed, and the return shape. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to warn about side effects.

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 well documented with an example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only glances at the parameter by mentioning the 'normalized pattern' in the return value, adding little syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('a hostname pattern from the webpage-capture allowlist'), which immediately separates it from add_allowed_site and list_allowed_sites. The scope is unambiguous 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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it ('to revoke a rule found by list_allowed_sites') and names the inverse tool ('use add_allowed_site to restore it'). This is full when/when-not/alternative coverage in one sentence.

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