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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the delete is soft, historical ranking data is preserved, and re-adding reactivates the same row, which materially changes how an agent reasons about data loss. It does not cover permissions or rate limits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its soft-delete nature, then the data-preservation consequence and the idempotency guarantee. 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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the behavior an agent needs: what happens to the row, what happens to history, and what a repeat call returns. Only the absence of any access/permission expectation keeps it from being fully complete.

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% and both parameters are documented as internal IDs sourced from list_keywords, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond it, 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 and resource ('Stop tracking a keyword') scoped to an app, and explicitly frames it as a soft delete distinct from the hard-removal an agent might assume. An agent can separate this from track_keywords without opening either 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?

The description implies context (untracking an existing tracked keyword, re-adding via track_keywords to reactivate) but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisite that the keyword must currently be tracked. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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