scf_remove_custom_risk_control

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

Annotations already flag this as non-readOnly and destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by disclosing the exact scope of destruction — only the mapping is removed, not the control or risk — and the permission requirement (editor+ role). This directly informs an agent what side effects to expect. Minor gap: no mention of behavior when the mapping does not exist or whether the operation is reversible.

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 core action and permission requirement are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence delivers the crucial non-destructive clarification. Every word earns its place.

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 simple 3-parameter unlink operation with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is quite complete: it states the action, the permission level, and the scope of the mutation. The absence of an output schema is not a major issue for a mutation of this simplicity. A small gap remains around reversibility and error handling, but nothing essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema already documents all three parameters with examples and sourcing hints ('obtain from scf_list_organizations', etc.). The tool description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 uses a specific verb ('Unlink'), names the exact resource ('a scoped control from a custom risk'), and distinguishes itself from sibling operations like scf_add_custom_risk_control and scf_delete_custom_risk by clarifying that both entities remain and only the mapping is removed. An agent can understand precisely what this tool does 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?

The description provides clear context: this is a write operation requiring an editor+ role, used to remove a mapping while preserving both the control and the risk. The 'both remain' phrasing implicitly excludes delete-style alternatives, but it does not explicitly name siblings like scf_add_custom_risk_control as the inverse operation, which would warrant a 5.

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