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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it explains that re-starring refreshes the timestamp and unstarring a non-starred keyword is a no-op (elaborating what idempotency means here), plus plan (Indie) and auth/write-scope prerequisites that no annotation conveys. This is exactly the extra behavioral context a write tool needs.

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, front-loaded with 'WRITE tool', each carrying distinct value (semantics, result effect, idempotency, requirements). 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?

For a two-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers behavior, idempotency semantics, effect on downstream results, and auth/plan requirements. Nothing needed to call 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning to the `starred` flag by tying it to the starred_at timestamp surfaced in sonar_app_keywords results. It slightly exceeds the schema's own documentation.

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 ('stars or unstars') and resource ('tracked keyword') plus scope ('caller's Sonar workspace'), and defines what a star means. An agent can distinguish this from sonar_track_keywords/sonar_untrack_keywords without opening 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?

The 'star = favorite/target' framing implies when to use it, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative for the tracking operations. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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