Stop tracking a resource

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

Annotations flag readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real value by explaining what is and isn't destroyed (manifest entry only, not the resource), which directly explains the non-destructive classification. It omits auth requirements or reversibility of the manifest edit, but adds more than the annotations alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the important non-deletion caveat in the first sentence. The trailing 'Safety classification: WRITE.' is largely redundant with the annotations, costing a little efficiency but nothing is buried.

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 three-parameter, output-schema-backed tool, the description covers the action, the scope boundary and the alternative tool. The dry_run parameter is never mentioned in prose, but the schema handles it, leaving the definition essentially 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 100%, so resource_id, resource_type and dry_run are already documented with examples and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Remove an entry from the local project manifest') and disambiguates scope with '(stop tracking it)'. It clearly separates itself from the manage_* siblings that mutate the actual Databricks resource.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when NOT to use it ('This does NOT delete the Databricks resource itself - use the matching manage_* tool for that'), which is the key routing decision. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over list_tracked_resources or any prerequisite sequencing, but the context is clear.

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