delete_user_geographic_access_scope

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description adds useful detail by specifying that the scope is cleared and left unassigned, that the operation is idempotent, and that specific hierarchy and permission conditions must hold. This goes beyond the annotation signals without contradicting them.

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?

The description is compact and each sentence adds useful information: context, action, hierarchy prerequisites, idempotency, and permission. The opening 'Manage country-based access...' sentence is somewhat broad, but it is not redundant and the rest is tightly structured.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the effect, preconditions, idempotency, and required permission. It does not elaborate on tenant-header parameters, but the schema already documents customerContext and the core invocation requirements are sufficiently complete.

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 only 25%, so the description needed to compensate, but it only indirectly addresses targetCustomerId and userId through 'target customer' and 'user'. It does not explain X-Tenant-Id or fully clarify how the authenticated-tenant constraint maps to parameters, leaving significant param semantics undocumented.

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 ('Clears') and resource ('geographic scope assigned to a user'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling delete tools like delete_customer_geographic_access_scope. The sentence 'leaving it unassigned' clarifies the resulting state, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 strong usage context by stating that the authenticated tenant must be the hierarchy root, the target must be the root or a child customer, and the UsersManager permission is required. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the constraints make intended invocation clear.

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