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

Goes beyond the annotations by explaining the partial nature of the destruction: keywords stop being checked while past position snapshots are deliberately retained, which is not derivable from destructiveHint/idempotentHint. The 'FREE: database only' note adds a cost signal, though it does not address reversibility of the removal itself or partial-failure behavior across many IDs.

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 key parameter, then the behavioral consequence, then the cost tier. No filler and nothing repeated from the title or schema.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the effect, the history-preservation guarantee, and the ID source. Minor gaps remain, such as the 1000-ID batch ceiling and handling of unknown/nonexistent IDs, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 real meaning by tying keywordIds to list_rank_tracking_keywords as the authoritative source. It adds nothing further about projectId/configId scoping beyond what the schema already documents.

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 (Removes) and resource (keywords from a rank tracker), identifies the keying parameter (tracking-keyword IDs), and points to list_rank_tracking_keywords as the ID source, which cleanly separates it from add_rank_tracking_keywords and remove_rank_annotation.

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 clear context for use by naming where the required IDs come from (list_rank_tracking_keywords) and noting the call is FREE/database-only, but it never states exclusions or an explicit alternative for the opposite operation (add_rank_tracking_keywords), so routing guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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