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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description crucially clarifies the exact thing annotations cannot: that already-collected leads are preserved. This is the highest-value behavioral disclosure for a destructive tool. It lacks details on auth requirements or reversibility of the untrack action itself, but the retention behavior is well covered.

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 compact sentences with no waste: purpose, the non-obvious retention behavior, and a concrete example. The retention caveat is front-loaded appropriately after the core action.

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 single-parameter destructive toggle, the description covers purpose, retention behavior, and the sibling alternative. Minor gaps (no output schema, so return behavior unknown) but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents linkedinUrl including handle formats. The description adds a concrete example (linkedin.com/in/johndoe) and reinforces the identifier format, but adds little beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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/untrack) and resource (LinkedIn profile from the Influencer Agent), and clarifies the scope by noting it affects future runs. Clearly distinguished from siblings like untrack_competitor and delete_signal_leads.

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?

The description explicitly names the alternative delete_signal_leads for removing already-collected leads, which is the key disambiguation an agent needs. It tells the agent both when to use this tool and when to reach for the sibling instead.

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