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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive). The description adds substantial context beyond that: the auth requirement (applications.deploy), the digest-matching precondition, the refusal behavior for changed/expired plans, and the caveat that starting deployment is not proof of readiness. Rich behavioral disclosure.

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 workflow position, then layers preconditions and follow-up. Every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 tells the agent what to do next (follow with get_service_instance) and covers permissions, preconditions, and failure modes. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 documents both parameters at 100% coverage (baseline would be 3), but the description adds real meaning: the digest must be exactly the one returned by prepare_service_setup, and a changed/expired plan is refused. That clarifies the value constraints and provenance beyond the schema's terse 'from prepare_service_setup'.

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: 'Confirm a prepared managed-service review and start its deployment.' It also positions the tool within the workflow ('step two of `ankra services setup`'), distinguishing it from prepare_service_setup and the get_service_instance sibling.

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 context and sequencing: use it after prepare_service_setup, and follow it with get_service_instance. It also names the failure condition (a changed or expired plan is refused). An agent knows exactly when to invoke this vs. its alternatives.

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