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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact, that every value is re-validated before writing, but says nothing about what is destroyed, reversibility, or failure handling.

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 and the source of the input. Each sentence carries weight, though the re-check sentence is somewhat tangential to invocation.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description gives no indication of what applying returns, whether partial failures are possible, or how to recover from a rejected change set. For a destructive mutation this leaves a noticeable gap.

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% with descriptions for both parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. 'Pass the changes back exactly as they came' reinforces the schema's 'unmodified' wording but adds no new syntax or format detail, matching the 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+resource ('Makes the changes') and immediately ties it to the sibling plan_campaign_change, making the plan/apply relationship explicit. An agent can tell it apart from plan_campaign_change without opening either 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?

Strongly implies the prerequisite flow ('the changes that plan_campaign_change worked out' and 'Pass the changes back exactly as they came'), so the agent knows this must follow a plan call with unmodified output. It lacks an explicit when-not or fallback alternative beyond that single workflow.

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