set_keyword_favorite

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation that is idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context about per-app independent favorite states and the need for tracked rows, which is not captured by the annotations. No contradictions exist.

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 sentences, no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. The second sentence adds a meaningful scoping detail about independent favorite states. Every sentence earns its place.

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 straightforward three-parameter setter with full schema descriptions and useful annotations, the description is complete. It explains parameter provenance, per-row behavior, and the action, and no output schema exists to require return-value documentation.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds provenance by stating both keyword_id and app_id come from list_keywords results. It also clarifies the boolean's toggling behavior with 'true to mark as favorite, false to unmark' in the schema, though the source-of-truth note provides extra value beyond the 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 opens with a specific verb phrase, 'Mark or unmark a tracked keyword as favorite for a specific app,' clearly defining the tool's action and scope. It also differentiates from siblings like track_keywords and untrack_keyword by focusing on the favorite state rather than tracking status.

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 gives clear usage context by specifying that favorites are stored per tracking row and that keyword_id and app_id come from list_keywords results. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple setter.

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