remove_rivals

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotency, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: this call only previews and a separate confirm_action applies the change after user approval. It stops short of describing reversibility or what exactly a preview 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?

Two short sentences with the critical constraint (PREVIEW ONLY) front-loaded, followed by the required follow-up action. No wasted words.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the essential two-step safety workflow and approval requirement that annotations alone don't convey. It is only slightly short of complete because the two parameters remain semantically undocumented.

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% for 2 required parameters, so the schema carries no meaning. The description lightly implies that appId is the target app and rivals is the competitor list, but adds no format, count limits, or identifier guidance to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (remove), resource (manual competitors/rivals), and scope (from an app), making it trivially distinguishable from siblings like add_rivals, get_rivals, and remove_keywords. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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 frames the tool as PREVIEW ONLY and names the alternative step (confirm_action) plus the condition (after the user approves). This is a rare case of clear when-to-use and how-to-proceed guidance tied to a named sibling.

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