Mark a keyword as favorite

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond that: favorites are stored per tracking row (profile + app + keyword), so a keyword across multiple apps has independent states. That clarifies blast radius and idempotency behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences, zero waste, with the action and scope front-loaded and the per-row storage model following. Every sentence contributes distinct information.

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?

With annotations carrying the safety profile, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: the action, the per-row scoping model, and where arguments originate. Only a minor gap remains in not naming related alternatives.

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% and each parameter already documents its type and source, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces that IDs come from list_keywords but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (mark/unmark), resource (tracked keyword), attribute (favorite), and scope (for a specific app). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like track_keywords and inspect_keyword, and the state-toggle semantics are explicit.

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?

Gives clear prerequisite context: both keyword_id and app_id come from list_keywords results, which tells the agent where to source inputs. It does not name an alternative or a when-not condition, so it falls short of a 5, but the usage context is well set.

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