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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it enumerates precisely what is destroyed (keywords with their notes and stars, discovered keywords, competitor links, and the product plus its screenshot sets if no other app remains) and what is preserved (shared store data — metadata, snapshots, rank history). This is exactly the kind of consequence detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with 'WRITE tool' and the core action, then ordered by consequence, alternative, and prerequisites. Dense but each sentence carries needed information for a destructive operation; minor length is justified rather than wasteful.

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 destructive single-parameter tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the scope of deletion, what survives, plan/authorization requirements, and the correct sibling to use for a narrower task.

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 only one parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or syntax detail about app_id beyond what the schema already states ('UUID ... NOT a store id').

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 and resource ('untrack an app in the caller's Sonar workspace') and immediately enumerates the exact effects (tracked keywords, discovered keywords, competitor links, product detachment). This lets an agent distinguish it from sibling destructive tools like sonar_untrack_keywords or sonar_delete_product 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?

Names an explicit alternative for a specific case ('To drop a competitor from one product use sonar_remove_competitor instead') and states prerequisites (Indie plan, authorized account or API key with write scope). Clear context is given, but there is no general when-not-to-use guidance covering the primary app-untracking operation.

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