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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains side effects on list_keeps and exports, the exact return shape, idempotency, cost, and error cases. There is no contradiction with annotations because none are provided.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose is front-loaded, then idempotency, endpoint mapping, cost, and errors each get one clear clause. There is no filler or 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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations, the description covers behavior, side effects, retry safety, cost, and errors; an output schema exists so return-value details are bonus. The only notable gap is the unexplained api_key parameter, though its optionality is visible in the schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains hook_id via the endpoint and the UUID error, but api_key is never mentioned or clarified. With two parameters and one completely unaddressed, the compensation is only partial.

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 opens with 'Undo keep_hook', naming the exact operation and resource. It clearly states the effect, the return value, and the equivalent DELETE endpoint, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling keep_hook.

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 strong context by identifying this as the inverse of keep_hook and noting that clearing an already-undecided hook is also success, so retries are safe. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the usage intent is clear.

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