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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the bounded behavior ('fewer if some changed; never more'), the required scopes ('read and modify (trash: delete)'), and per-call limits ('50 Free, 500 paid'). These are exactly the operational facts the annotations (destructive/idempotent hints) do not carry.

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?

Densely front-loaded: the core action leads, followed by bounded-scope, safety, auth, and quota clauses. Every sentence carries a distinct constraint with 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described. It covers safety, idempotency, auth, and quota well; the only slight gap is the undo path, which relies on the schema description.

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?

At 50% schema coverage the description should compensate, and it clarifies the batch's origin and the trash scope, but leaves the meaning of count, confirm, and undo to the schema. Adds marginal value, so baseline 3.

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 (Applies) and resource (the batch a bulk_preview sealed), and implicitly contrasts itself with the sibling bulk_preview. An agent can immediately tell this commits what preview proposed.

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 workflow is clear: it must follow a bulk_preview and 'after the owner agreed,' which conveys the required precondition. It does not explicitly state when-not to use it or name alternatives beyond the preview relationship, so it stops short of a 5.

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