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

The annotations already declare destructive, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by requiring a spending/deletion preview and owner-approved confirm:true using the same requestId, though it does not describe exactly what callout data may be changed or deleted.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the tool purpose. The confirmation workflow follows immediately, though the 'Fields:' URI line is minimally informative and the 'status is active' clause is terse enough to be unclear.

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?

This is a complex destructive mutation with nested parameters and no output schema. The description covers the critical approval workflow, but it leaves important details about payload structure, affected fields, and outcome handling largely to the schema or an external URI.

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 60%, so many parameters are already documented. The description only clarifies confirm and requestId reuse and otherwise points to a URI rather than explaining the nested payload, updates array, assetResourceName, platform, parameters, or expected preview fields.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Update account callouts.' It is distinguishable from unrelated ad tools, but it does not explicitly clarify how it differs from sibling callout tools such as add_account_callouts, list_account_callouts, or remove_account_callout.

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?

It gives an important workflow condition for destructive actions: preview first, then owner-approved confirm:true with the same requestId. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus the add/remove/list callout siblings, and the line 'Claim live only when status is active' is ambiguous as usage guidance.

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