remove_redirect_uri

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 covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the caller OAuth token requirement and confirmation of what is destroyed ("deletes that URL from the allowed list"). It does not say what happens if the URI is absent, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action before the routing hints. The final sentence partially restates the opening (removal of the URL), a minor redundancy that keeps it off a 5.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, alternatives, auth requirement and effect. Edge behavior (unknown URI, effect on active sessions) is unstated but not essential to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (uri, environmentId with its env_<id> pattern) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 with scope: "Remove one login callback URL from an environment." It also explicitly contrasts itself with the near-identical sibling remove_post_logout_redirect_uri, so an agent can pick correctly without opening either 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?

Names two alternatives with the condition that selects each: remove_post_logout_redirect_uri for post-logout URLs and list_redirect_uris for reading the current list. This is exactly the disambiguation needed among the redirect-URI siblings (add_redirect_uri, remove_initiate_login_uri).

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