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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes well beyond them: it enumerates exactly what is destroyed (apps, tracked keywords, discovered keywords, competitor links, screenshot sets) and, crucially, what is preserved (shared store metadata, snapshots, rank history). It also states the auth/plan requirements, which no annotation conveys.

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?

One dense paragraph that is aggressively front-loaded with the operation scope, then the delete/no-delete boundary, then the return shape, then prerequisites. Every clause carries decision-relevant information; nothing is padding.

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, but the description compensates by naming the return object keys ({ id, deleted, untracked_apps }). Combined with the explicit preserved-vs-destroyed inventory and auth requirements, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and reason about consequences.

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 there is a single parameter, so the schema already fully documents product_id and its provenance. The description adds nothing about parameter format or sourcing beyond what the schema field description provides, so the 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 (delete) and resource (product) plus the full cascade: untracking every linked app with its tracked/discovered keywords and competitor links, and deleting screenshot sets. This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from the narrower sibling tools like sonar_untrack_app or sonar_delete_screenshot_set.

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 discloses prerequisites (Indie plan, authorized account or write-scope API key) and the blast radius, which helps an agent decide whether it is safe to call. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings that partially overlap (sonar_untrack_app, sonar_delete_screenshot_set), so the when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance is only implied.

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