scf_remove_custom_risk_control

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states that the control and risk remain after unlinking, and that only the mapping is removed. It also mentions the required role. It does not cover error cases or idempotency, but the core behavior is well-disclosed.

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 description is two sentences, front-loads the key action, and includes essential context (role requirement, non-destructive nature). No unnecessary 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?

Given the simple action and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and side effects. It lacks information on return values or error handling, but for a straightforward unlinking operation, the coverage is sufficient.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters (org_id, scf_id, risk_code) that explain their format and how to obtain values. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter details, so baseline 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 clearly states the action 'Unlink a scoped control from a custom risk' and uniquely identifies the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like scf_add_custom_risk_control by noting that only the mapping is removed, not the control or risk.

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 implicitly tells when to use (to unlink a control from a risk) and mentions the required role (editor+). It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the sibling context makes it clear that scf_add_custom_risk_control is the inverse.

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