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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotency; the description adds plan requirements (Indie) and auth/scope prerequisites not present in annotations. It does not state the reversibility or response behavior, but the auth/plan context is genuinely additive.

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 tight sentences; the write classification and identity source are front-loaded, and every clause carries operational value.

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?

For a single-param destructive tool with full annotation coverage, this covers scope, identity source, plan, and auth. It stops short of stating irreversibility or confirming whether re-deleting is a no-op, which would complete the picture.

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 already warns the id is the UUID, not the keyword_id. The description references that source but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — 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+resource ('stop tracking one keyword/app pair') and names the exact identifier source (tracked-keyword id from sonar_app_keywords). Distinguishes itself from bulk siblings like sonar_untrack_keywords and sonar_untrack_app by scoping to a single pair.

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?

Clear context is given — single-pair untracking, plan and auth prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sonar_untrack_keywords or sonar_untrack_app, which an agent choosing between them would need.

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