optimizer_remove_optionDeletes a generated or custom listing option from the optimizer using its project and option ID, removing it from your ASO configuration.
Delete one listing option (generated or custom) from the optimizer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| optionId | Yes | Option id. | |
| projectId | Yes | Project id (from get_overview). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds one useful qualifier — that both generated and custom options can be removed, and only one at a time — but says nothing about permanence, undo, or side effects on dependent state.
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?
A single short sentence with the destructive action front-loaded and zero filler. It is terse to the point of omitting any contextual sentence, but nothing written is wasted.
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 two-parameter, fully documented deletion with rich annotations and no output schema, most of what an agent needs is present. The remaining gap — whether deletion is reversible and what happens to state referencing the option — is material for a destructive tool and is left uncovered.
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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the pointer 'from get_overview' for projectId. The description adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 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 ('Delete one listing option') and narrows the object to '(generated or custom) from the optimizer', which distinguishes it from broader tools like optimizer_reset. It does not explicitly name a sibling it could be confused with, so it stops short of a 5.
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 description gives no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives — an agent must infer from the name whether this is the right tool versus optimizer_reset (clear all) or optimizer_save_option. Nothing about preconditions or consequences of use is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.