competitor_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the delete is soft (reversible), that credits are not refunded, and explicitly how to restore. This gives key behavioral context beyond a simple 'delete' statement, though it doesn't address what happens to associated data.

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, each serving a purpose: action, caution, and restore instructions. No fluff or redundancy. Fully front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 delete tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key context: soft-delete behavior, refund policy, and restore path. It doesn't explain what happens to related data (e.g., analyses), but that's a minor gap for this scope.

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 both parameters have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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: 'Soft-delete a tracked competitor from the brand.' The verb 'soft-delete' is specific and distinguishes this from hard delete, and the mention of restoration via competitor_update provides clear differentiation from sibling tools.

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 names competitor_update as the restore path, giving a clear alternative. It also warns that 'No credits are refunded,' which is relevant usage context. It doesn't list exclusions or when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient for this simple tool.

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