remove_competitor

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's job is light. The description adds useful context about the relation row ID vs. the competitor app ID, which is a common pitfall. It doesn't contradict annotations. It could mention irreversibility, but this is adequately covered.

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?

One sentence, no fluff, and it front-loads the critical clarification about the ID type. Every word earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter destructive tool, the description is complete. It's clear what the ID refers to, where to get it, and what happens when invoked. The only minor gap could be explicit mention of the irreversibility, which the destructiveHint annotation already covers. No output schema exists, so no need to describe return values.

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%, and the description reinforces the critical meaning of the relation_id parameter, clarifying potential confusion with the competitor app ID. The parameter name and schema description are sufficient, and the description adds the crucial distinction between the relation ID and app ID.

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 tool removes a competitor relationship using a specific internal relation ID, explicitly distinguishing this from the competitor app ID. It's a specific verb-resource pair that differentiates from siblings 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?

The description implicitly tells when to use the tool (when you have the relation ID from list_competitors or add_competitor) and clarifies the ID is not the app ID. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling context makes the usage clear.

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