Set how many answers each check captures

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

Adds substantive context beyond the annotations: reduced passes are lost permanently ('never made up later'), which explains the destructiveHint, and 'safe to retry' reinforces idempotentHint. It also discloses that unchangeable queries are surfaced in a 'failed' field, which is output behavior not visible anywhere else.

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?

Five tight clauses, each carrying distinct information (scope, constraint, budget effect, irreversibility, failure reporting, retry safety). Front-loaded with the action and its scope, with no filler.

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, retry-safe mutation with no output schema, the description covers irreversibility, failure reporting, cost impact, and retry safety. Only the two ID scoping parameters remain unaddressed, which is a modest gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains nPasses well (semantics, and that values above 1 apply only to AI engines) and notes the 100-query batch limit on trackedQueryIds, but says nothing about organizationId or projectId, leaving half the parameters unexplained.

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: changing how many answers each check captures for up to 100 tracked queries, naming the controlling parameter (nPasses). Distinguishable from the sibling set_tracked_query_check_frequency, which governs timing rather than per-check pass count.

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 operational context: fewer passes spend less budget, and it points to get_usage to observe the effect. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling frequency tool or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full routing statement.

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