Delete a Rank Radar

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: no restore endpoint, effect on Daily Tracked Keywords quota, and the relationship to list_rank_radars status: ARCHIVED. No contradiction with 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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: action, irreversibility, approval condition, quota effect, status mapping, and alternative tool. Slightly longer than strictly necessary but front-loaded and well structured.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, irreversibility, side effects, alternative behavior, and response expectations are not needed. An agent has everything needed to select and correctly invoke this tool.

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 the schema already explains confirm and rankRadarId. The description repeats the same semantics ('only after the user approves', 'from list_rank_radars') without adding new 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 and resource: 'permanently remove a Rank Radar and all of its keyword ranking history.' This clearly distinguishes from pausing/archiving by explicitly contrasting with pause_rank_radar and explaining the ARCHIVED status.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: use when permanent deletion with history removal is intended, and explicitly names pause_rank_radar as the alternative when the user wants to stop tracking while keeping history or asks to 'archive'. Also gives the approval precondition: set confirm only after user approves.

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