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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and notably destructiveHint=false for a removal operation, but the description adds nothing to clarify this: it does not say whether the keyword is deleted permanently or merely deactivated, whether in-flight outreach referencing it is affected, or what permissions are needed. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description still contributes zero behavioral context.

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 short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted, but the terseness here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 three-parameter removal tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description leaves the agent without the scoping, reversibility, or side-effect information needed to call it confidently.

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% across three required parameters (projectId, siteId, keywordId). The word "one" hints that keywordId identifies a single keyword, but the description never explains why both a project and a site id are required or how they scope the deletion.

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 verb+resource pair ("Remove ... keyword") is clear, but the resource is called a "prospecting keyword" while the tool and its siblings (list_outreach_keywords, add_outreach_keywords) use "outreach keyword," so the naming is slightly off. No attempt is made to distinguish it from the adjacent remove_article_keywords or delete_lead_keyword, so an agent must infer scope from the name alone.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling handles the related cases. The description contains no context or prerequisites at all.

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