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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by explaining what is and isn't destroyed: issues keep their tag and re-declaring restores them, but name/icon/place are lost and issues become 'outside every track'. It doesn't cover the response shape or error behavior, but the impact profile is unusually well disclosed for a destructive tool.

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?

Front-loads the key distinction (undeclare vs delete) and every sentence carries real information. Slightly long and reliant on emphasis, but no filler.

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 two-param destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers reversibility, side effects, permission needs, and the archive alternative — everything an agent needs to call it responsibly.

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% with both required params (projectKey, tag) documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about parameter format or effect beyond what the schema already provides.

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 — 'Undeclare a track' — and immediately disambiguates from deletion by clarifying that the declaration goes, not the label. Despite the tool name 'remove_track', an agent can tell exactly what this does.

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?

Explicitly names the when-not case and the alternative: 'For a track that is merely finished, archive it instead: set_track with archived=true.' It also states the prerequisite (permission to write in the project). Nothing is left to inference.

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