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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered structurally; the description still adds real value by disclosing that tracking history is destroyed along with the keyword and that the operation is irreversible. It does not mention permissions or partial-failure behavior.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the action and the irreversible warning, with the related-tools pointer last. No filler.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers what is destroyed and irreversibility; only minor gaps like permission requirements or scope limits remain.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema fully documents savedKeywordIds. The description adds no syntax, format, or batching guidance beyond what the schema already states, making 3 the correct baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('Removes') and resource ('saved keywords and their tracking history'), which clearly separates it from delete_post, delete_site, and delete_assets. It names related siblings (list_saved_keywords, save_keywords) but does not explicitly contrast with the closest destructive alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource and the 'Related:' pointer to list/save tools, but there is no explicit statement of when to remove versus archive or otherwise suppress a keyword. The 'cannot be undone' line is a warning rather than routing guidance.

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