Delete Keywords

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to disclose whether the deletion is irreversible, whether it affects other resources, or any required permissions. The phrase 'Delete keywords from a project' implies mutation but offers no warnings or side-effect details. This is a severe gap for a destructive operation.

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 very concise at 12 words across two sentences. It is front-loaded with 'Project Tool:' which is somewhat redundant given the namespace, but overall it is efficient. Every part serves a purpose, though it could be slightly expanded for clarity.

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 is incomplete. It lacks details on return behavior (e.g., success message, count of deleted items), irreversibility, batch processing limits, and the meaning of 'project ID' versus 'site_id'. For a destructive tool, more context is needed for safe usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value: it mentions a 'project ID' but the parameter is 'site_id' (integer), creating confusion. It does not explain the relationship between 'project ID' and 'site_id', nor does it clarify that 'keywords_ids' are the IDs of keywords to delete (already covered by 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 clearly states 'Delete keywords from a project,' which matches the tool's name and title. The verb 'Delete' is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like PROJECT_addKeywords or PROJECT_listKeywords. However, the mention of 'project ID' is slightly inconsistent with the parameter 'site_id' in the input schema, causing minor ambiguity.

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 such as PROJECT_deleteKeywordGroup or PROJECT_deleteCompetitor. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the project must exist, keywords must be present) or when not to use it. This lack of context makes it harder for an AI agent to decide appropriately.

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