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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the exclusion is persistent into all future planning, add_to_plan will refuse the item, already scheduled or published articles are unaffected, and the call is free. That is exactly the downstream-effect disclosure a mutation 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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the effect, then the input rule, the undo path, and the cost. No filler sentences and no restatement of the title.

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?

Three simple parameters, no output schema needed, and the description covers effect, scope of impact, input constraint, reversal, and cost. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke 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 a constraint the schema cannot express: the mutual exclusivity of keyword and topic, plus the definition of topic as a cluster label from get_keywords. This meaningfully reduces misuse.

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 ('Hard-excludes one keyword or one topic label from all future planning') and clarifies the dual-mode input. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling exclude_topic, which appears to cover the topic half of this tool's surface, so an agent still has to guess which of the two to call for a topic label.

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?

Gives a concrete usage constraint ('Give exactly one of keyword or topic') and names the reversal path ('Undo with restore_keyword'). It stops short of explicit when-to-use guidance relative to the sibling exclude_topic/dismiss_topic tools.

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