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

Beyond the destructive/idempotent annotations, the description spells out the scope of destruction ('removes it and its future checks; history stays') so the agent knows historical data survives. It also documents the idempotent path ('alreadyArchived: true') and the failure path ('unknown-query') which archives nothing, so the caller can distinguish a refusal from a partial success.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the effect and its data-retention boundary, followed by the identifier source and the three possible outcomes. No filler, and the most consequential fact (history stays) is placed early.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description fully covers return values for the success, already-archived, and refused cases. Combined with the destructive scope statement and the id source, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly and interpret the result.

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 50%: siteId is documented in the schema but queryId has no schema description, and the description compensates by stating its provenance ('comes from list_prompts or add_prompt'). It does not describe the queryId format (opaque id vs. prompt text), which is the one remaining gap.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Stop tracking a prompt') and immediately differentiates the operation from alternatives by naming where the identifier comes from ('queryId comes from list_prompts or add_prompt'). An agent can distinguish this from sibling listing/adding tools without reading 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?

It gives clear context for use (cease tracking a prompt, which also stops future checks) and points to the two sibling tools that supply the required id. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or note about undoing an archive, but for a terminal operation with no sibling alternative the guidance is adequate.

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