Delete competitor

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds information annotations cannot express: the exact cascade scope (monitors, snapshots, changes) and that deletion is irreversible. This is the behavioral context an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste. The destructive scope is front-loaded and the safe alternative follows immediately.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is destroyed, irreversibility, and the safer alternative. Nothing material is missing.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it fully (100% coverage) including the source of the id (list_competitors or add_competitor). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered params applies.

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 ("Permanently delete a competitor") and immediately scopes the operation to its cascade effects (monitors, snapshots, changes). An agent can distinguish this from delete_monitor or update_competitor without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it: "To stop checks and keep history, use update_competitor with status paused." This is a clear when-not-to-use rule pointing at a named sibling.

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