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

Annotations only carry destructive/idempotent/closed-world flags; the description adds rich semantics on top: removes matching active prompt assignments, repairs the primary journey stage, leaves retired rows and Scan history intact, and returns null after removal. These side-effect disclosures go well beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Six compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded before side effects and return behavior. Slightly dense and the parenthetical disambiguation adds length, but every sentence carries operational meaning.

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 destructive two-param mutation with an output schema, the agent needs destruction scope, side effects, prerequisites, and return semantics — all present. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are fully described in-schema (itemId as saved definition ID, siteId as Site/Topic UUID). The description echoes the get_scan_config source but adds no new syntax or constraints, so 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 (Remove) and resource (strategy product/service), and explicitly delineates it from business-profile products and tracked entities. This scoping lets an agent separate it from sibling mutations like remove_competitor, remove_persona, and remove_scan_region without opening any 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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite (read get_scan_config.products for definitions and IDs) and a clear negative boundary (does not launch a Scan). It stops short of explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives routing (e.g., remove vs update_product), so it falls just short of a 5.

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