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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'WRITE tool' framing is corroborating rather than novel. It does add value beyond annotations by disclosing the plan requirement (Indie/trial counts) and the auth modes (account vs write-scoped API key), which annotations cannot convey. It does not describe the return payload or partial-failure behavior.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the WRITE classification and the mode-selection rule before the prerequisites. Every clause carries information, though the auth/plan sentence is somewhat packed.

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 bulk mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: operation type, the two mutually exclusive modes, the alternative tool, and the plan/auth gates. Only the response shape and any partial-failure semantics are unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including the mutual-exclusivity rule the description repeats. The description adds the practical note that a single keyword should use the sibling tool instead, but no format or semantic detail beyond the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'bulk-untrack keywords for an app in the caller's Sonar workspace.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the single-keyword sibling (sonar_delete_tracked_keyword), so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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?

States the two mutually exclusive invocation modes (all:true vs ids:[...]), names the single-keyword alternative, and gives prerequisites (Indie plan, authorized account or write-scoped API key). This is explicit when-to-use guidance with an alternative named.

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