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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing reversibility (undo via add_keyword), which is consistent with destructiveHint=false. It does not explain the guard/confirm flow, which the schema hints at but the description ignores.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence pays for itself by stating the recovery path. 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?

For a three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core action and reversibility but omits what happens on failure, whether confirmation is required, and effects on related data. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 67% (app_id and confirm are documented in the schema; keyword is not but is self-evident). The description adds no parameter-level detail such as keyword format, scope, or confirmation behavior, so it does not improve on the structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Stop tracking a search keyword on a project'), clearly distinguishing it from the many 'add_*' and 'remove_competitor/remove_seed' siblings. It does not explicitly name the alternative sibling operations, only its undo, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 implies usage context by describing the undo path ('the add_keyword call that puts it back'), which helps an agent understand reversal but is not the same as guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives. No explicit when/when-not conditions are given.

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