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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds value the annotations cannot: this is a two-phase operation requiring an owner-approved preview and a reused requestId, and the result is only live once status is active. What it omits is whether adding appends to or replaces existing snippets, and what a failure response looks like.

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?

It is short and front-loads the purpose before the workflow constraint, which is good. But the trailing "Fields: soclo://tools/..." pointer is opaque and the phrase "Claim live" is jargon that costs a sentence without conveying anything actionable.

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 highest-risk element, the owner-approval/confirm handshake and requestId reuse. It falls short on what scope "account" means, whether existing snippets are replaced, and how to recover an outcome, but the critical safety story is present.

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 60%, so the schema carries most of the load, including the nested payload shape (header enum, 3-10 values of up to 25 chars). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond echoing confirm and requestId, and says nothing about the many uncovered or seemingly irrelevant parameters (platform, parameters, expectedCurrency/expectedBudgetType/expectedBudgetAmount) for a snippets operation.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Add account snippets") for a Soclo Ads account, which is distinguishable from the neighboring add/update/remove asset tools by verb alone. It never differentiates against siblings such as soclo_ads_update_account_structured_snippets, soclo_ads_remove_account_structured_snippet, or soclo_ads_add_account_sitelinks/callouts, and it doesn't describe what a structured snippet is.

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?

"Spending/deletion: preview, then owner-approved confirm:true with the same requestId" gives a real precondition for calling, and "Claim live only when status is active" implies a follow-up status check. However, there is no guidance on checking existing snippets via soclo_ads_list_account_structured_snippets first, nor on choosing add versus update, and the exclusions are left implicit.

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