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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful constraint (max 500 keys per request) but says nothing about whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens to keyword history, positions, or statistics, or whether special permissions are required — significant omissions for a destructive operation.

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?

Two short sentences, with the action front-loaded and the limit trailing as a secondary constraint. The limit sentence partially duplicates the schema's maxItems, but it is still compact and readable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. However, for an irreversible mutation with no annotations, the description leaves the critical questions unanswered: permanence, side effects on related data, and error behavior above the 500 limit.

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?

There is only one parameter, and the schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already documents keyword_ids, minItems 1, and maxItems 500. The description's 'Максимум 500' merely restates the schema's maxItems, adding no new semantics, so the 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 and resource (delete keywords) plus the selector (by identifiers), so the agent can tell it apart from read tools like get_keywords. It does not differentiate from the closest siblings delete_keyword_group or update_keywords_status, which is the main reason it is not a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternative. For example, it never says whether to use update_keywords_status instead if the goal is to archive or disable keywords rather than delete them.

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