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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, destructive mutation, and the description adds substantive context beyond them: changing the mapping alters what the number means, and the call may return `needs_confirmation`. It does not cover permissions, reversibility, or rate behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and what changes, then the trigger and the caveat. Every sentence earns its place; the guarded phrasing ('say what you're changing and why') is guidance rather than 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?

For a destructive 10-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral risks plus the `needs_confirmation` return signal. The main gap is that most parameters (toolName/toolArgs/windowHours/approvalId) remain unexplained anywhere.

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 only 30% across 10 parameters, so the description must carry more weight. It maps conceptually to mapping/schedule/enabled but adds no syntax, path format, or meaning for toolName, toolArgs, workspace, approvalId, or windowHours.

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?

A precise update verb on a specific resource, with the mutable surface enumerated (arguments, mapping, cadence, pause). It is distinguishable from siblings like ledger_feeds_run, ledger_feeds_preview, and ledger_feeds_delete without opening any 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 a concrete trigger: reach for it when a feed's last run reports `empty` (shape moved) or `error`. That is real when-to-use guidance, but it never names an alternative tool or a when-not (e.g., delete vs pause), so routing is not fully closed.

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