Set phrase for one market

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: passing an empty phrase deletes the existing override, which is the one non-obvious side effect of this mutation and is not implied by the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the primary action comes first and the removal semantics follow. Every clause carries information.

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-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the override concept and the removal behavior, which is enough to call it correctly. It stops short of explaining how the override relates to the keyword's base phrase or to rank checks, which would have made it fully 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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including 'empty = remove override'. The description's 'in one market' reinforces the per-market scoping of the market parameter but adds little else beyond the schema, 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: override the exact search phrase used for a keyword in one market, with a concrete example of why (better local wording). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling localize_keyword, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 parenthetical 'e.g. a better local wording' implies the situation in which to use it, and the second sentence implies the removal case. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of localize_keyword or edit_keyword as alternatives, so the agent must infer routing.

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