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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by flagging it as a WRITE tool and disclosing the plan requirement and write-scope auth requirement. It does not explain the blast radius of untracking (e.g. whether tracked history/rankings are lost), which would push it to 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?

A single dense sentence-block with the safety-critical 'WRITE tool' prefix front-loaded, followed by mode selection, then prerequisites. No redundant or filler text.

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 and full schema coverage, the description supplies the mode contract, plan gate, and auth gate an agent needs. It stops short of describing the effect on existing tracked data, which is the one remaining behavioral 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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the mutual exclusivity of `all` and `ids` plus the app UUID semantics. The description largely restates that exclusivity rule rather than adding new meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 with scope ('bulk-untrack keywords for an app'), immediately distinguishing it from the single-keyword sibling sonar_delete_tracked_keyword and from sonar_untrack_app. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Clearly states the two invocation modes ('all: true' OR 'ids: [...]', exactly one) and the prerequisites (Indie plan, authorized account or API key with write scope). It does not explicitly contrast against the sibling single-delete tool, but the mode-selection guidance is unambiguous.

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