Add or remove tracked queries from clusters

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, and the description usefully reinforces this with 'Safe to retry' and 'Other cluster memberships are left alone'. It also adds genuinely new behavior not in annotations: the partial-failure contract ('reported in failed without stopping the rest') and the 100-item batch cap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the add/remove action, then scope, then failure/retry behavior. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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 mutating batch tool, the description covers the essential operational facts: batch size, non-destructive scope, partial-failure reporting, and retry safety. The remaining gap is that it does not clarify what the ID parameters refer to or whether partial failures are surfaced in a response body (no output schema exists).

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, and it only covers two of five parameters: operation ('add'/'remove') and the 100-item ceiling for tracked queries. organizationId, projectId, and queryClusterIds receive no explanation at all, leaving the bulk of the required inputs undocumented.

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 names a specific verb pair (add/remove), the resource (tracked queries), and the container (query clusters), and maps each operation to the enum values. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like create_clusters or apply_auto_clustering without opening the 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?

The add/remove semantics imply when to use each mode, and 'Other cluster memberships are left alone' scopes the effect. However, no alternative tool is named (e.g. when to use this versus create_clusters or update_tracked_queries), so routing guidance is only implied.

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