Change tracked queries

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: partial failures are reported per-item in "failed", and the operation is explicitly "Safe to retry" — useful context beyond the structured hints. It could say more about the failure shape (e.g. what the failure objects contain), keeping it below a 5.

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?

Every sentence is load-bearing: batch limit, operation semantics, constraints, budget impact, failure reporting, retry safety. It is dense rather than bloated and leads with the core capability, though the tightly packed parentheticals make it slightly harder to scan than an ideal 5.

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 6-parameter batch mutation with no output schema, the description covers operation semantics, parameter constraints, budget consequences, partial-failure reporting, and retry safety — enough for correct invocation. Only the identifiers (organizationId/projectId) and the exact failure payload are left unspecified.

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 carries the burden, and it does: all four operation enum values are defined, checkFrequency and nPasses are tied to their triggering operations, the nPasses>1 constraint is stated, and the 100-item cap on trackedQueryIds is surfaced. organizationId/projectId are left implicit, which is the only gap.

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 (batch-changing tracked queries) and immediately enumerates the four supported operations, which cleanly separates it from create_tracked_queries, delete_tracked_queries, and set_tracked_query_clusters. An agent can identify the tool's scope 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?

Gives operation-level guidance (pause stops checks, resume restarts, set_check_frequency needs checkFrequency, set_passes needs nPasses, nPasses>1 only for AI engines) and points to get_usage to gauge budget impact. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use framing or a direct pointer to the sibling tools an agent might confuse it with, so it falls short of a 5.

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