clear_global_notice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the mutating nature of the operation and the required admin_write permission, which is meaningful. However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, behavior when no notice exists, or what response to expect, leaving gaps for a destructive admin action.

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 short sentences with no redundant wording. The core action is front-loaded, and the permission requirement earns its place as actionable context.

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 one-action admin tool with a single optional parameter, the description covers the essential context: what is removed and what permission is required. The schema handles the parameter, and no output schema exists, so return-value details are not critical here. Minor omissions like idempotency or no-op behavior prevent a perfect score.

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?

The input schema fully describes the only parameter, 'profile', with 100% coverage, so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description adds no parameter-level details, which is acceptable given the parameter is optional and already documented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') with an exact resource ('Survey Solutions Headquarters global notice'), making the action unmistakable. It also differentiates naturally from sibling tools like set_global_notice and get_global_notice by describing a removal rather than a creation or retrieval.

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 intended use is implied by the verb 'Remove' and the resource name, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over get_global_notice or set_global_notice. The permission note is useful but does not provide usage context, alternatives, or exclusion criteria.

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