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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: source='research' tagging, retention of cluster names/intent/provenance, and the default of promoting all clusters. However, annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description frames the operation as additive preservation without explaining what is destroyed or overwritten; that notable trait is left undisclosed.

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 with the core action front-loaded, followed by timing and optional-parameter conditions. No filler, though the parenthetical is dense and the sentence order slightly buries the timing advice.

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?

Covers the action, timing, provenance, and parameter defaults, but for a mutation tool with destructiveHint=true and no output schema it omits key behavior: how duplicate/existing tracked keywords are handled, whether anything is removed from the session, and what the call returns.

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 all three parameters are already documented, but the description meaningfully adds default semantics ('defaults to all clusters in the session', site_id defaults to the session's linked site) that convey intent beyond the bare field descriptions.

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 action (promote a research session's saved clusters) and resource (brand's tracked keywords), with a parenthetical spelling out what is preserved (cluster names, intent, session provenance). It is clearly distinct in intent from siblings like add_tracked_keywords and list_tracked_keywords, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives clear timing guidance ('Do this at the END of keyword research so findings aren't stranded') and conditional parameter guidance ('pass site_id if the session isn't linked to a brand'). It stops short of naming a sibling as an alternative or stating when not to use it.

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