seo_edit_keyword

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses the precondition that at least one of four fields must be supplied, and it describes the effects of each action: overriding intent, attaching tags, nudging priority, and excluding from clustering. It does not mention authentication requirements, reversibility, or return value, but for a housekeeping edit operation, these are not critical gaps.

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 compact, with three main sentences and an example. Every sentence adds distinct information: purpose, usage context, precondition, and a practical example. The example is beneficial rather than wasteful.

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 the schema covers all parameter descriptions and the description provides usage context and a precondition, the tool is well-specified. However, since there is no output schema, it would be helpful to mention what the tool returns, and it does not describe error behavior if the precondition is violated. Still, the essentials for an edit operation are covered.

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 already provides 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the 'at least one of' condition not enforced by the schema and provides a concrete example showing intent and userTags combined, which clarifies how the parameters interact.

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 'Edit a single SeoScoredKeyword', using a specific verb and resource. The term 'single' distinguishes it from seo_bulk_edit_keywords, and the list of editable fields clarifies scope. While it doesn't name sibling alternatives explicitly, the 'housekeeping op' framing and 'single' provide differentiation.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'override the auto-detected intent label, attach user tags, manually nudge priority (0..1), or exclude a noisy keyword from clustering.' It also notes the tool is 'not part of the main flow,' indicating when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention the alternative bulk editing tool or state when not to use it.

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