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

Beyond the annotations (destructive=true, idempotent=true), the description adds the crucial nuance that the measured history is retained and the question can be re-added later, and it discloses the ambiguity-refusal behavior. This meaningfully softens the destructiveHint and is exactly the extra context the agent 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, each carrying distinct information (scope, reversibility, matching semantics) with no waste.

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 one-parameter mutation tool whose annotations already cover safety and idempotency, the description fully covers reversibility, input-matching rules, and error behavior; nothing an agent needs to call 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 goes further by explaining that the question text should be given as the user says it, that an exact match or unique fragment both work, and that ambiguous inputs are refused with candidates listed.

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 precise verb+resource ('Stop tracking a question') scoped to the connected brand, and it is unambiguously the inverse of the sibling track_question. An agent can identify it 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 establishes the context of use (stopping tracking for the connected brand) and how to identify the target question, but does not explicitly point to track_question as the way to reverse the action or state a when-not condition.

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