scf_remove_custom_risk_control

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond them by clarifying that both the control and the risk survive and only the mapping is deleted, and it discloses a non-obvious collateral effect — unlinking clears an accepted exception's approval. The required role (editor+) is also stated, which no annotation conveys.

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 short sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the action and its scope before the caveats. Each sentence carries distinct information (what it does, what survives, what side effect occurs).

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: role requirement, scope of the change, and the side effect on exception approvals. It stops short of stating the success/response shape or failure modes, but nothing an agent needs 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 description coverage is 100% — org_id, scf_id and risk_code each carry their own description and a source tool for obtaining the value. The description adds no format, constraint, or example beyond the schema, 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Unlink a control from a custom risk') and immediately distinguishes the operation from the surrounding scf_add_custom_risk_control / scf_update_custom_risk_control / scf_delete_custom_risk siblings by naming exactly what is and is not removed. An agent can route to this tool 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?

It supplies a concrete precondition ('write — editor+ role'), which is real usage guidance, but never names the inverse tool (scf_add_custom_risk_control) or states when to prefer unlinking versus updating the mapping. Usage is implied rather than contrasted with alternatives.

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