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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the ID-sourcing step and the array format, without saying whether removal is reversible or what happens to keywords with recorded ranking history. Adequate but not rich beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the prerequisite. No filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter, fully documented mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the ID source, and the input format. Only minor gaps remain (e.g., behavior when an ID is invalid or absent), which the annotations partially mitigate.

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%, so both site_id and keyword_ids are already documented, including the JSON-array example. The description's mention of passing keyword_ids as a JSON array restates the schema rather than adding syntax, limits, or batching guidance.

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 and resource ('Remove tracked keywords by id') with the ID source named, which cleanly separates it from add_tracked_keywords and list_tracked_keywords in the sibling set. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Gives a clear prerequisite and workflow ('get ids from list_tracked_keywords'), routing the agent to the right upstream tool. It does not state explicit when-not conditions, but the add/remove/list triad makes the intended use unambiguous.

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