serpwatcher_add_tracked_keyword

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action without any information about side effects, required permissions, rate limits, idempotency, or consequences of adding a keyword. For a mutation operation, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and avoids any filler. This is an ideal length for a tool that only needs to state a straightforward action.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain that the keyword must be provided in the request body or query, nor does it connect to the existing tracking context. The presence of nested body and query objects with generic descriptions further compounds the need for contextual guidance that is entirely missing.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (tracking_id, body, query). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify what the body or query should contain for this specific operation. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter semantics adequately, though the description does nothing to enrich them.

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 states the action clearly: 'Track another keyword in a SERPWatcher tracking.' It identifies the verb (track), the object (keyword), and the context (SERPWatcher tracking), making the purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like serpwatcher_tracked_keywords or serpwatcher_create_tracking, but the focus on adding a keyword is reasonably clear.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as having an existing tracking ID, nor does it indicate that other tools like serpwatcher_tracked_keywords are for listing or deleting tracked keywords. The absence of any contextual or exclusionary information leaves the agent without usage direction.

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