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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: exactly what delete destroys (every stored answer, content briefs, recalculated views and rebuilt daily totals for past periods), the timing (immediate for short history, hours for long), that deactivate preserves answers, and that both write an internal timeline note. It also discloses the auth requirement and the preview-without-confirm behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the default mode before the destructive branch, which is the right ordering. It is dense and somewhat long, with the app-UI 'Resume on the Prompts tab' asides being the least essential content, but nearly every sentence carries decision-relevant information.

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 activation requirements, the preview/confirm return path, the precise destruction scope, recalculation side effects and their timing, and the safer alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly or safely is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by explaining the downstream consequences of the 'mode' enum choice in prose and clarifying the confirm/previewToken preview flow ('without confirm:true it returns a preview'). It goes modestly beyond the schema text rather than merely restating it.

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+resource ('Stop tracking an AI-visibility prompt') and immediately distinguishes the two modes, deactivate (pause) vs delete (permanent removal). An agent can tell this apart from sibling update_tracking_prompt and the other management tools without opening 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Prefer deactivate unless the prompt was a mistake,' and names the resume alternative (update_tracking_prompt with active:true, or the app's Resume switch). The condition selecting each mode is spelled out, not inferred.

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