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

Annotations already declare this is destructive, non-idempotent, and not read-only, and the description adds the crucial two-phase commit protocol: phase 1 returns a confirmation token plus preview, phase 2 with confirmation_token performs the mutation. It discloses how the destructive action is gated, which the annotations alone do not convey.

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-loads the purpose, then the two-phase mechanics, then the hard prerequisite, then the parameter tip. Every sentence is load-bearing; nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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, two-phase, six-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: the staging requirement, the phase-1 preview artifact, and the phase-2 commit. An agent has everything needed to sequence the calls correctly.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds real usage guidance beyond the schema by telling the agent to pre-populate agent_name so the confirm preview is human-readable, and by tying confirmation_token to phase 2.

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 ('Apply an ICP edit (description and/or filters JSON) to one agent') and immediately scopes the operation to a single agent. It differentiates itself from the sibling draft_icp_edit by framing that tool as the staging step and this one as the committing step.

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 mandates the prerequisite ('ALWAYS call draft_icp_edit first... never call update_icp directly without staging a diff') and names the exact condition for using this tool (after the user confirms the inline diff). This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke it versus its sibling.

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