Set how often tracked queries are checked

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the 100-item cap, that skipped checks are never backfilled, that per-item failures surface in a 'failed' field (partial-success semantics), and that the call is safe to retry (consistent with idempotentHint). This is the exact kind of disclosure an agent needs for a destructive, batch mutation.

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 compact clauses front-loaded with the action and its limit, then cost, then side effects, then failure reporting. No filler sentences; each line carries a distinct fact.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers cost, irreversibility of skipped checks, and the 'failed' response field. The main residual gap is the role/format of the organization and project identifiers, but overall an agent has enough to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it does explain the frequency values and the 100-item limit (both already implied by the enum and maxItems), but says nothing about organizationId or projectId and gives no format guidance for trackedQueryIds. Partial compensation for a 4-parameter, undocumented schema.

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?

Specific verb ('Change how often ... are checked') plus resource ('tracked queries') and scope ('up to 100'). It clearly delineates the mutation, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling set_tracked_query_passes or pause/resume_tracked_queries, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between frequency and other query settings.

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?

Gives clear context for use by pairing the change with its cost consequence ('A lower frequency spends less budget') and pointing at get_usage to evaluate the effect. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or naming the alternative tools for the other tracked-query settings.

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