remove_keywords

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuine non-obvious context beyond that: history is retained while rank collection stops, and the operation is a two-step preview/confirm flow. Missing only auth/permission requirements.

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 tight sentences with the critical 'PREVIEW ONLY' constraint front-loaded, followed by the behavioral effect and the apply step. Zero wasted words.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers what the agent most needs for a destructive mutation: that it is a preview, what state changes occur, and how to commit it via confirm_action. No output/return info is required here, though permissions are unaddressed.

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 50%: appId is documented in the schema ('app id from list_apps') but keywords is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('stop tracking keywords for an app'), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like pause_keyword or remove_rivals. It does not explicitly contrast with pause_keyword despite the semantic overlap, so it falls short of a 5.

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 states the workflow: preview first, then 'Apply with confirm_action after the user approves.' This gives clear context for invocation. It does not name exclusions versus pause_keyword or resume_keyword, so not a full 5.

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