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

Annotations already declare destructive/non-idempotent, but the description adds the key behavior an agent cannot infer: risky operations return confirmation_required with a handle, the user must be asked, and the identical call must be repeated with that handle. Categorizing which actions are 'risky' (deletions, external deliveries, paid AI work, delivery/source changes) is genuinely non-obvious context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose then the risky-action protocol. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a generic dispatcher over a large operation surface, the description supplies the one piece of procedural knowledge needed to call it safely — the confirmation loop — leaving operation shapes to api_details as stated in the schema.

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% and the confirm parameter is already documented in detail, so the description has little room to add. It reinforces that the retry must be the identical call with the handle, but adds no field-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Runs an operation that changes the user's account') and enumerates the concrete action classes (goals, sources, workflows, starting work, deleting). This clearly separates it from semantichub_api_read and the search/details siblings.

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?

Establishes when to use it (any changing operation) and prescribes a precise workflow for risky actions. It stops short of explicitly saying to use semantichub_api_read for non-changing calls or naming semantichub_api_search as the source of operation_id, which the schema carries instead.

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