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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds non-obvious semantics the schema cannot express: all-or-nothing atomicity, the fact that ownership failure aborts the whole batch, and that the error enumerates the unknown ids. That directly answers an agent's biggest risk question for a bulk destructive call.

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 sentences, all load-bearing: trigger, id source, atomicity contract, and the confirmation requirement. Usage guidance is front-loaded and the destructive-action caveat lands before an agent commits to the call.

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?

Output schema exists so return shape needs no explanation, and the description covers the remaining risks for a destructive bulk tool: batch limits, validation failure mode, and required user confirmation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this safely 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% and the schema already documents keywordIds as 'id fields from list_saved_keywords, up to 100 per call' plus min/max items. The description repeats that same information for the id source and the 100 cap rather than adding new meaning, so 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 ('remove several keywords from their saved list at once'), and the phrase 'several ... at once' implicitly carves it out from the singular delete_saved_keyword sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation relies on inference.

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?

Gives the triggering condition ('when the user asks to remove several keywords'), points to list_saved_keywords as the id source, caps the batch at 100, and adds a required precondition (confirm the specific keywords with the user first). An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call this.

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