Pause Search Terms of a Rank Radar

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

The description is rich in behavioral detail: it says the operation is reversible, keeps history, frees slots, requires no confirmation, and is safe to repeat. However, the annotations declare destructiveHint: true, while the description insists 'nothing is lost' and 'Reversible ... needs no confirm'. This directly contradicts the annotation, so per the rubric behavioral transparency must be scored 1.

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 purpose and includes several useful operational details. It is slightly wordy in places—'archiving' plus 'history kept' plus 'nothing is lost' partially overlap—but every sentence contributes actionable guidance, so it remains effective and compact enough.

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-parameter tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description is complete: it covers when to use it, what effect it has, how to get inputs, reversibility, idempotency, and why confirmation can be skipped. The only serious issue is the contradiction with the destructive annotation, which is already penalized under behavioral transparency.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it clarifies that keyword ids must not be the keyword text, and it names the exact sources of valid ids from get_rank_radar_data and add_rank_radar_search_terms. This materially improves the agent's ability to construct a correct call.

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 uses a specific verb ('stop tracking individual keywords') and a precise resource ('on a Rank Radar while keeping the Rank Radar itself active'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like pause_rank_radar and resume_rank_radar_search_terms. It also explains the practical use case of trimming an overly broad keyword set, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool 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?

The description explicitly states when to use it ('the way to trim a keyword set the user finds too broad') and contrasts it with pausing the entire Rank Radar by emphasizing the radar stays active. It also points to the reverse operation and tells the agent where to get keyword ids, so the agent knows exactly how to proceed.

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