Delete saved keyword

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds the confirmation requirement ('only after the user confirms deletion'), which is valuable safety context beyond the annotation. It doesn't discuss irreversibility explicitly, but that's implied and the confirmation gate compensates. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences with no waste. The first states the action, the second the critical usage precondition. Efficient and front-loaded. Could arguably score 5, but the description is slightly terse and could benefit from noting the irreversible nature more directly.

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 simple delete operation with destructiveHint=true annotation, the description plus annotations adequately convey the essentials: what it does, confirmation requirement, and two key parameters documented. No output schema exists, but delete operations typically return minimal responses, so this is acceptable. The description is reasonably complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 67% — project_id and saved_keyword_id are described in the schema, but idempotency_key has no description. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies given the schema covers most parameters, though the undocumented idempotency_key is a minor gap.

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 "Delete one saved keyword" clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (saved keyword), with specificity about scope (one). It distinguishes from siblings like delete_keyword (regular keyword) and delete_saved_view (different resource), though it doesn't explicitly name the distinctions.

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 provides clear context on when to use it: "Use only after the user confirms deletion." This is important confirmation-before-deletion guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools (like delete_keyword for regular keywords with project_id context), so a small gap remains.

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