Create saved keywords

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

Annotations give readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds the key behavioral fact that 'Keywords already tracked or saved are skipped' (idempotent skip behavior). However, with no output schema and openWorldHint=false, it doesn't clarify return semantics or confirm whether skipped keywords produce errors or partial success responses.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and the key caveat. No wasted words, though the difference between keywords-as-strings vs keywords-as-objects is only implied by the schema, not the description.

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 create operation with openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. But given the skip behavior and the nested object/string dual format in the keywords array, it could clarify the valid string-vs-object trade-offs and the return shape when keywords are skipped. The sibling 'add_keywords' and 'delete_saved_keyword' relationships are not clarified.

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 67% with 3 parameters. The keywords array and project_id already have detailed schema descriptions, and idempotency_key is a familiar concept. The description adds minimal value since the schema already documents the parameters well; the skip behavior is the only genuinely useful addition beyond schema.

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 description says 'Save keyword ideas without starting paid rank tracking' which clearly states the verb (save) and resource (keyword ideas) and the key distinguishing behavior (not starting rank tracking). However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tools 'add_keywords' or 'list_saved_keywords' explicitly, so it relies on the tool name to imply the saved-keywords workflow distinction.

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 implicitly conveys usage context ('without starting paid rank tracking') which distinguishes it from add_keywords. However, there's no explicit when-to-use vs alternative guidance, and 'Keywords already tracked or saved are skipped' provides a behavioral note rather than usage direction.

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