Add Keywords

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Add new keywords' with no details on mutability, idempotency, permission requirements, error handling, or effects on existing data. The mention of 'new' implies no overwrite, but this is not explicit.

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?

Only two sentences, no redundancy beyond the first sentence which repeats the requirement already in schema. Could be shorter, but it is fairly concise and front-loaded with purpose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return format, potential errors, or behavior under edge cases (e.g., duplicate keywords). For a write tool with two required parameters, more context is needed for reliable agent invocation.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, and there is a minor mismatch: description says 'project ID' but schema parameter is 'site_id'. This could cause confusion but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema already defines parameters.

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 clearly states the verb ('Add') and resource ('keywords to a project'), matching the title and name. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like PROJECT_deleteKeywords or PROJECT_addCompetitor, which would help an agent distinguish similar operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites beyond requiring a project ID (which is already in the schema). The description does not mention when not to use it, such as if keywords already exist or if the project is not accessible.

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