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 by stating exactly what is destroyed (video history and snapshots) and by documenting the two-phase preview/token confirmation choreography. That two-step flow is invisible in the annotations and is the single most important behavior for invoking this tool safely.

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 with zero filler: the effect is stated first, then the safety protocol. The destructive warning is front-loaded where an agent will see it before acting.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the destroyed data, and the confirmation protocol, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of saying whether the creator record itself is removed from the tracked dashboard or what the preview response contains, but the annotations carry the rest.

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 75% and the confirmation_token description already explains the omit-then-pass-back protocol, so the description mostly restates it. The required account_id has no description in either schema or description, so nothing compensates for that gap. 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?

Names a specific verb ('Stop tracking') and resource ('a creator') and immediately states the consequence: deletion of stored video history and snapshots. This clearly separates it from update_tracked_account and track_creators, which the agent can rule out without opening their schemas.

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 destructive two-call protocol is spelled out ('first call returns a preview and confirmation_token; call again with the token only after the user confirms in a later turn'), which is clear operational context. It does not, however, name any alternative tool or the condition under which an agent should prefer update_tracked_account (e.g., to pause rather than delete) over this one.

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