seo_reject_cluster

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the key side effect ('marks it rejected and detaches its scored keywords'), which is useful. But it does not mention whether this is reversible, what happens to the keywords after detachment, or any permission requirements. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then a clear usage trigger. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 simple two-parameter action tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and the main side effect. The absence of reversibility info and mention of restore alternatives are minor gaps, but the tool is simple enough that the description suffices.

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 description coverage is 100%: both brandId and clusterId have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The clusterId is explicitly linked to seo_list_clusters, and brandId notes defaulting behavior. Since the schema already explains parameters, the description adds little extra semantic value, matching the baseline of 3.

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 the tool rejects a single cluster and explicitly names the resource ('cluster') and the action ('reject'). It also mentions a specific side effect (detaches scored keywords), distinguishing it from generic operations. The phrase 'single cluster' also separates it from the sibling bulk tool.

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 a clear use case: 'Use when a generated cluster isn't relevant.' This provides context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like seo_bulk_reject_clusters for multiple clusters, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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