untrack_keyword

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

Behavioral transparency is strong. It goes beyond annotations by explaining the soft-delete semantics, that historical data is preserved, that re-adding reactivates the row, and that the operation is idempotent. These details align with and enrich the destructive and idempotent hints.

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 concise sentences deliver purpose, important behavioral nuance, and idempotency without extra words. Each sentence contributes meaningful 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the action, result semantics, side effects, reversibility, and idempotent failure behavior. No critical gaps remain for an agent to use it correctly.

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 already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions stating both are internal IDs sourced from list_keywords results. The description adds no new parameter-level details, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific action ('Stop tracking a keyword') targeting a specific resource ('for the specified app'), and clarifies it is a soft delete. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool track_keywords by clearly defining the inverse operation.

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 implies the appropriate context: use it to remove keyword tracking while preserving historical data, and re-add later using a tracking tool. However, it does not explicitly name track_keywords or mention when not to use it, though the sibling relationship is clear from context.

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