Delete a competitor

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: it enumerates the cascading deletions (mentions, search results, shopping results) and states 'Irreversible.' It also discloses the confirmationToken authorization gate, which the annotations do not convey.

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 sentences, each earning its place: action+scope first, destructive/irreversible warning second, required workflow third. Front-loaded and free of filler.

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 destructive tool with no output schema this covers the essentials: cascade scope, irreversibility, and the token gate. The only notable omission is any explanation of requestId — with idempotentHint=false, an agent cannot tell whether retrying with the same requestId is safe or a no-op.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the schema itself contributes no semantics. The description explains confirmationToken's origin and purpose well, but organizationId, projectId, competitorId and requestId are left entirely unexplained — requestId in particular is not tied to the idempotentHint=false annotation.

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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Remove a competitor from a project') and immediately scopes the blast radius ('together with every mention, search result and shopping result'). This distinguishes it cleanly from update_competitor and from the other delete_* siblings without needing to name them.

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?

Gives an explicit, ordered prerequisite workflow: call preview_operation with tool "delete_competitor", show the returned plan to the user, and only call this tool after explicit user agreement. This is exactly the when/how guidance an agent needs and it is stated as a hard requirement, not a suggestion.

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