remove_forward

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the key non-obvious behavior: the registration is retained and only the redirect is removed, preventing a common misconception. It does not mention idempotency or failure modes, which are minor for such a simple mutation.

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 entire description is two sentences, with the action and scope front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the operation, the second clarifies how it differs from deletion.

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 a simple two-parameter tool with fully covered schema, the description should clarify result and side effects. It did: it confirms the redirect is removed but registration remains. It would be slightly stronger if it noted the expected success response, but it is not necessary for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameter descriptions already explain 'label' with an example and 'domain' with defaults/enumerations. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics, so a baseline score of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Stop forwarding a subdomain.' It further clarifies scope by stating the domain name remains registered, which differentiates it from deletion tools like delete_domain or remove_proxy.

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 makes the intended use case clear if you need to stop forwarding, and 'only the redirect is removed' implies you should not choose this if you want to remove the subdomain registration itself. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it relative to remove_proxy or delete_domain.

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