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

Despite annotations already declaring destructiveHint=true, the description adds substantial value: it discloses exactly what is destroyed under 'delete' (every measured position, totals, distribution history), confirms 'pause' is reversible, states the write-permission requirement, and explains the confirm:true preview gate. This is behavior the annotations alone cannot convey.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by mode consequences and then the confirm/preview requirement. No filler and no repetition of schema fields.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers permanence, reversibility, permission requirements, and the two-step preview/confirm workflow. An agent has everything needed to call it safely without further discovery.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by spelling out the downstream consequences of each mode value and by linking the preview/confirm flow. It stops short of restating keywordIds or clientId semantics, which the schema already handles.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Stop tracking keywords' — and immediately qualifies scope via the two modes. An agent can distinguish this from add_rank_keywords and update_rank_keywords without inspecting any 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?

It clearly frames the decision between the default 'pause' (reversible, keeps history) and 'delete' (permanent), and names update_rank_keywords as the reversal path. It does not explicitly contrast itself with other removal tools like remove_tracking_prompt, but the mode-selection guidance is concrete and actionable.

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