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 and repeat-call profile is covered. The description adds the useful disambiguation that the argument is a relation row id rather than a competitor app id, but says nothing about effects or reversibility 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?

A single front-loaded sentence identifies the action and identifier, with the clarification parenthesized rather than padding the main clause. No wasted words.

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 one-parameter delete tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it does, what it deletes, and precisely which ID to supply.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description goes further by warning that the id is the relation row id and not the competitor app id, resolving a genuine ambiguity the schema alone does not address.

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 (competitor relationship) and clarifies the identifier to use. It draws a sharp distinction that lets an agent differentiate it from sibling tools like add_competitor and list_competitors.

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?

It tells the agent where the required ID comes from (the `id` field returned by list_competitors or add_competitor), which is clear usage context. It does not, however, state when not to use it or any prerequisites such as permissions.

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