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

With annotations only declaring the safety profile, the description adds real behavioral detail: the batch is atomic (the whole list is refused on quota overflow), re-adding an archived prompt restores it rather than duplicating, and nothing changes until confirm: true follows an approved preview. These are non-obvious traits an agent could not infer from readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the quota constraint and restore behavior, closing with the preview/confirm workflow. No filler or repetition.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, full schema coverage and a clear safety annotation set, the description supplies everything needed: quota failure mode, upsert/restore semantics, and the required preview-then-confirm sequence.

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 brand, topic, confirm and prompts are already documented in the schema. The description's 'Preview first; confirm: true applies' reinforces the confirm parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Track new buyer questions (prompts) for the brand') and narrows the scope with 'new', implicitly separating it from list_prompts, suggest_prompts and archive_prompts. An agent can tell this is the creation path without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage guidance: preview first, then set confirm: true to apply. It also states the precondition that the whole list is refused when it would exceed the plan's prompt quota. It stops short of naming the sibling alternatives (suggest_prompts, archive_prompts) that a caller might confuse this with.

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