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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the not-found failure mode when the id is not on the user's list, and the guarantee that a successful result means the keyword really was removed. A user-confirmation norm is also surfaced.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the triggering condition, then the parameter convention, then the failure semantics, then the safety caveat. Nothing is redundant and each sentence adds a distinct piece of information.

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?

A single-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and an output schema needs little more. The description covers trigger, id sourcing, failure behavior, and confirmation — everything required to invoke it safely and correctly.

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 the schema itself documents keywordId, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly further by stressing the id comes from list_saved_keywords and explicitly not the keyword text, which prevents a common misuse of a string identifier parameter.

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 ("remove or delete one keyword from their saved list") and the singular "one keyword" implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling delete_saved_keywords bulk tool. An agent can tell exactly which operation this performs 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?

"Use this when the user asks to remove or delete one keyword" gives a clear triggering condition, and the confirmation guidance ("Confirm with the user before deleting keywords they did not explicitly name") adds a concrete usage rule. It stops short of explicitly naming delete_saved_keywords as the alternative for bulk removal, so the contrast is inferred rather than stated.

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