Set brands excluded from competitor rankings

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by detailing the side effect: excluded brands are dropped from competitor rankings, share of voice, and citations across all historical measurements. It also clarifies that the list is replaced wholesale, which is critical for a state-changing call. This does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two short paragraphs front-load the replacement semantics, then provide the key caveat and effect. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 single-parameter write operation with no output schema, the description covers scope ('active project'), replacement behavior, side effects, input limits, optional aliases, and the empty-list case. Nothing essential 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%, so the schema already documents exclusions, aliases, maxItems, and empty-array behavior. The description reinforces 'up to 50' and 'optional alternative spellings/aliases,' but adds little meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 'Replaces the complete exclusion list for the active project with the one provided,' naming a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also links to list_competitor_exclusions, which distinguishes it from the read/add alternative in the sibling tool list.

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 explicitly says to read the current list with list_competitor_exclusions first if addition rather than replacement is desired, and states the empty-array behavior ('excludes nobody'). This gives an agent a clear decision rule for when to call this tool instead of the sibling.

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