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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the retention rule (past scan results remain in history) and the preview-then-confirm gate, though the confirm mechanics largely restate the schema's own confirm description.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the primary action and its consequence before the sibling comparison and the confirmation gate. Every clause 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 destructive, closed-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is removed, what is preserved (history), the safer alternative, and the preview/confirm sequence that must be honored. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 all three parameters (brand, confirm, prompts) are already documented with format and sourcing hints in the schema. The description only echoes the confirm behavior and adds no prompt-text format or batch-limit detail beyond what the schema states; 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 (stop tracking / remove from the prompt list) and immediately distinguishes the operation from its nearest sibling by noting that past scan results stay in history. An agent can tell this apart from archive_prompts or remove_competitor without opening any 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?

Names the alternative explicitly ('Prefer archive_prompts to keep them listed') and gives the operative condition that selects it. It also states the call sequence ('Preview first; confirm: true applies'), so the agent knows the required two-step flow rather than a single destructive call.

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