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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds 'Irreversible' and 'Permanently deletes the resource,' clarifying the consequences. It also discloses the space scoping behavior, which is not in annotations.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and consequences, followed by scoping details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple delete operation with two parameters, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, and space scoping. It omits return values or error handling, but given the absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable. The destructive annotation plus the irreversibility warning provide a complete safety profile.

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?

The schema covers space_id with a description, and the description reinforces its use for overriding the active Space. However, keyword_id has no schema description beyond its name, and the description does not elaborate on it, leaving a gap for the required parameter.

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 clearly states 'Delete a keyword' and emphasizes 'Permanently deletes the resource.' This uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling delete tools like delete_ad and delete_campaign.

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 description provides explicit scoping guidance: 'Scoped to the active Space — see set_active_space to switch, or pass space_id to override for this one call.' This tells the agent how to target the correct space and when to use set_active_space vs the space_id parameter, which is practical guidance beyond just identifying the tool.

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