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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing cascade semantics: the competitor link is dropped under every own app of the product, and the competitor app is untracked only if no other own app still references it. It also adds error behavior (404) and authorization/plan requirements, which annotations cannot express.

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 WRITE marker and the core action, followed by side effects and then prerequisites. No filler; each clause 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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: action, cascade side effects, the untrack condition, the error case, and auth/plan requirements. Annotations and schema fill the remaining slots (idempotency, param types).

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%, and both parameters are documented with UUID sourcing and an explicit warning that competitor_app_id is the app UUID, not a store id. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, 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 ('remove a competitor from a product') and immediately flags it as a WRITE tool, distinguishing it from read-oriented siblings like sonar_competitor_landscape. The scope is unambiguous: one competitor, one product, in the caller's workspace.

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 clear operational context — the 404 condition when the product has no such competitor, and the Indie-plan/auth prerequisites. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative (e.g., sonar_untrack_app) or stating when NOT to use it, but the trigger condition is well understood from the purpose.

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