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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds the useful clarification that the action only queues work for human approval and performs no execution. It does not explain what state changes occur, what happens on retry with the same idempotency key, or whether repeated calls create duplicate approval requests.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the second sentence is a meaningful boundary statement rather than filler. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers intent and the non-execution boundary but omits what is returned (approval request identifier/status) and the preconditions for a valid plan. Annotations carry the safety profile, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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?

No parameter is mentioned in the description. With only 60% schema coverage, 'case' and 'plan_request_id' carry no descriptions anywhere, and the relationship between the case and the plan being prepared is left to inference. The phrase 'current saved plan' is only a weak signal toward plan_request_id.

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 concrete verb ('Prepare') and resource ('the exact work in the current saved plan'), which is more specific than a bare name restatement. It does not differentiate itself from sibling tools, but no sibling covers the action/session domain, so the risk of confusion is low. 'Prepare' itself remains somewhat abstract about what artifact is produced.

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 clause 'Does not approve or execute' implies this is a pre-step in an approve/execute workflow, but no alternative tool is named and no prerequisites (e.g., a plan must already exist and be saved, where plan_request_id comes from) are stated. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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