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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations: it does not say whether removal is permanent, what happens to phrases not present in the list, or whether confirmation is needed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Sizing is appropriately tight, though its extreme brevity leaves room the description could have used for scope and behavior.

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, three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It omits which site/project scope applies, what constitutes a successful removal, and any interaction with the add/import/list keyword siblings.

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 0% for all three required parameters (projectId, siteId, phrases). The description mentions 'keywords,' loosely gestures at 'phrases,' but explains nothing about project/site scoping or the array-of-strings format, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (remove) and resource (keywords from the website's saved keyword list), which clearly distinguishes it from add_article_keywords, list_article_keywords, and search_article_keywords by action alone. It does not name any sibling explicitly, but the verb difference is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., add_article_keywords for the inverse operation), and no prerequisites or exclusions. The action implies use, but nothing tells the agent when removal is the right call versus re-importing or listing.

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