Remove tracked queries from clusters

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructive/idempotent hints) by disclosing the actual consequence: past results vanish from that cluster's reports until re-added, while other cluster memberships are untouched. It also discloses the non-atomic failure model ("each tracked query that cannot be changed is reported in 'failed' without stopping the rest"), which is exactly what an agent needs before invoking a destructive batch operation.

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?

Four tight sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the action and its limit, then consequences, then failure semantics, then retry safety. Each sentence contributes operational information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 destructive batch mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: side effects on reports, partial-failure reporting via a 'failed' collection, and idempotency. The remaining gap is the shape of the success response (counts of removed vs. failed memberships), which is minor but would have made it complete.

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 0% and all four parameters are required, so the description carries the full burden — yet it only implies plurality for queryClusterIds and trackedQueryIds. The 100-item cap is already in the schema (maxItems) and nothing is said about ID format, whether organizationId/projectId scope the cluster lookup, or whether IDs are validated up front.

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+resource pair ("Take ... tracked queries out of ... query clusters") with explicit scope: up to 100 items, one or more clusters. Distinguishes itself from the inverse operation by naming add_tracked_queries_to_clusters, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Clear context for use (selective removal of query-cluster memberships) and an explicit reversal path via add_tracked_queries_to_clusters, plus "Safe to retry" guidance for retry behavior. It stops short of naming exclusions or contrasting with delete_cluster, so it is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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