rimuovi_analisi_sito

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses what is destroyed (table row plus history), that local texts on the user's machine are deleted by default via `anche_testi_locali`, and the downstream consequence that controlla_somiglianza can no longer compare against that site until re-analysis. It also states what is NOT touched (products, already-written SEO fields), but omits reversibility/undo and what the call returns.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by side effects and then the usage restriction — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The awkward mid-sentence line breaks and slight repetition of the default flag cost a point.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, defaults, side effects, exclusions, and cross-tool impact. The remaining gap is return-value/confirmation behavior, which nothing else in the structured data supplies.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for both parameters: `sito` is explained as the name as shown in the table (with an example, "tomatosmartphone.it") or the address, and `anche_testi_locali` is described as default-on with its real effect on local files. What is missing is any note on accepted formats/aliases beyond the example.

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 specific verb and resource — removing an analyzed site from the «Concorrenti e confronto» table of the plugin's SEO tab, including its history. The named table and the explicit scope make it easily separable from siblings like analizza_seo_sito and controlla_somiglianza.

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 a hard usage gate — use ONLY on explicit user request, and tell the user which site is being removed — plus a concrete motivation example (the report was useless). It does not name an alternative tool for the closely related task of clearing only local texts, which keeps it from a 5.

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