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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses what is preserved (issues, tags, labels), what is lost (name, icon, place), the reversible nature of re-declaring, and the post-condition that issues count as outside every track. This is unusually transparent for a mutation 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then builds out the behavioral caveats in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, preservation/loss semantics, alternative route, and permission. No filler or repetition is present.

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?

Given only two fully documented parameters and no output schema, this description covers everything an agent needs: what the action does, what side effects occur, when not to use it, and what permission is required. The absence of a return-value description is not a gap because no output schema exists and the operation's effects are fully described.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both tag and projectKey with examples. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing that the track is identified by these values, which is sufficient given the schema's completeness.

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 opening phrase 'Undeclare a track' gives a specific verb and resource, and the description immediately distinguishes this from removal or deletion by emphasizing that the label stays on the work. It also contrasts with the sibling set_track by positioning this as the opposite action. An agent can tell what this tool is for without inspecting other definitions.

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 states the alternative: 'For a track that is merely finished, archive it instead: set_track with archived=true.' This gives a concrete branching condition and names the sibling to use instead. It also adds the permission requirement, making the invocation context clear.

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