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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains that removal is reversible via an archive, preserves last known volume and difficulty, and does not disturb related articles. This aligns with destructiveHint=false and adds meaningful behavioral context about side effects and recovery.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by archive behavior, article impact, and the alternative tool. Every sentence carries relevant information, including the billing note 'Free.'

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, reversibility, recovery paths, side effects, and alternative behavior. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly appears to be 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 useful semantics by specifying that keyword matching is case-insensitive. It does not add much about the site parameter, but the schema already documents it fully.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it removes keywords from the customer's own list. It also clarifies case-insensitive matching and explicitly distinguishes itself from exclude_keyword, so an agent can identify its role 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?

It gives explicit usage boundaries: removed keywords are archived rather than permanently lost, they can be seen with list_archived_keywords and restored with restore_archived_keywords, and exclude_keyword should be used instead when a keyword must never be planned again. It also states that scheduled or published articles are not affected.

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