Add Search Terms to a Rank Radar

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains meaningful behavioral details: newly added keywords are tracked from now on, previously paused matching keywords are resumed, each keyword consumes a Daily Tracked Keywords slot, and the operation is reversible via `pause_rank_radar_search_terms`. It even addresses why no confirmation is needed, which is valuable context for agent decision-making.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, behavioral effects, quota constraint, reversibility, and return values are all covered without filler. The most important scoping decision (existing radar vs new radar) is front-loaded.

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 state-changing tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete. It explains failure conditions, quota implications, reversibility, and what the return fields mean, including how the returned ids connect to sibling pause/resume tools.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds behavioral semantics not present in the schema: each submitted keyword occupies a quota slot, matching paused keywords get resumed, and the returned ids feed pause/resume tools. This enriches the agent's understanding of what the parameters actually cause.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'start tracking extra keywords on an existing Rank Radar.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from `create_rank_radar`, so an agent can immediately tell this is for extending an existing radar rather than creating a new one.

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?

It states precisely when to use this tool ('on an existing Rank Radar, instead of creating a new one') and names the relevant alternatives (`create_rank_radar`, `pause_rank_radar_search_terms`). It also gives an actionable precondition: check `get_quota` first because the call fails when quota is exhausted.

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