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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious context the annotations cannot: the plan requirement and the auth/scope requirement. It does not say what gets destroyed beyond the pair itself, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with 'WRITE tool', each carrying distinct information (what it does, which sibling replaces it, what it requires). No filler.

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?

Single required param, no output schema, rich annotations, and the description still covers the destructive-write framing, the id-source convention, the sibling alternative, and the plan/auth prerequisites. Nothing needed to invoke it 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already spells out that tracked_keyword_id is the UUID returned by sonar_app_keywords and not the keyword_id. The description's mention of the same distinction therefore repeats structured data rather than adding meaning — baseline 3.

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+resource+scope ('stop tracking one keyword/app pair in the caller's Sonar workspace') and explicitly names the sibling it differs from. An agent can distinguish it from sonar_untrack_keywords without opening a 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?

Gives the routing rule directly: use this for a single id, use sonar_untrack_keywords to remove several or all of an app's keywords. Also names the prerequisite (Indie plan, authorized account or write-scoped API key).

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