Dismiss or restore an audit competitor

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive mutation, and the description usefully adds what the change does and does not affect (lists/evidence vs. rankings/competition), implying a soft, reversible operation. It does not describe what the call returns, whether re-dismissing an already-dismissed app errors, or what permissions are needed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the effect and its scope caveat, followed by parameter provenance. Every clause carries information an agent needs, and there is no redundancy.

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 three-parameter toggle with no output schema, the description covers the mutation's effect, its limits, the restore path, and where appId comes from. It leaves out error/idempotency edge cases and return behavior, which are minor but non-zero omissions.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real provenance the schema lacks: appId is the store id taken from get_audit competitors[].app.id. The restore flag's meaning is only echoed from the schema rather than expanded.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Leave an app out of the audit's competitor lists') and covers both directions of the toggle, naming the restore flag. It also states the scope boundary — the app still counts in rankings and competition — which lets an agent tell this apart from other exclusion-style siblings like dont_target.

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 makes clear when to use it (to exclude a competitor from audit lists and AI evidence) and how to reverse it (restore). It stops short of saying when not to use it or why one would pick this over the related dont_target sibling, which covers a different exclusion concept.

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