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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing specific consequences: editing a live keyword counts against the monthly change allowance, the new value is re-graded, and any paid slot is preserved. This gives an agent an accurate model of the tool's behavioral and side effects.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by three concise, high-value behavioral statements. Every sentence earns its place and no information is repeated or padded.

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 an output schema and annotations, the description is complete. It covers the operation's purpose, the key cost and side-effect considerations, and points to the related allowance tool. Nothing essential for a correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, with both keywordId and value already documented. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, noting that the new value is re-graded, but it does not explain keywordId semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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: 'Change a keyword's text.' This clearly distinguishes edit_keyword from sibling tools like delete_keyword, enable_keyword, and disable_keyword, which target status or existence rather than the keyword's textual value.

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 clear context for when the tool is used: editing a keyword's text, with different cost implications for suspended vs live keywords. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but it references keyword_change_usage for allowance tracking, which gives useful guidance without being fully explicit.

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