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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely non-structured context: a two-step preview/confirm flow requiring owner approval, requestId reuse for confirmation and recovery, and the constraint that live status must be verified before claiming success. It stops short of describing what a preview returns or what happens to sitelinks not listed in the update.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the safety-critical confirm workflow is stated early. The telegraphic style ('Spending/deletion: preview, then owner-approved confirm:true') compresses the procedure near the edge of ambiguity, and the trailing resource-URI pointer is a pointer rather than an explanation.

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 approval/confirmation contract but leaves parameter semantics and the post-call outcome path (presumably soclo_ads_operation_status) implicit. It is adequate to avoid an unsafe call, but not complete enough to invoke confidently without opening the schema and the referenced field doc.

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?

With 10 parameters at 60% schema description coverage, the description only touches confirm and requestId semantics (both already described in the schema) and defers the rest to an external pointer ('Fields: soclo://tools/...'). It adds no meaning for expectedCurrency, expectedBudgetType, expectedBudgetAmount, or the nested payload.updates structure, leaving a real coverage gap.

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 ('Update account sitelinks') that is clearly separable from the sibling set (add_account_sitelinks, remove_account_sitelink, list_account_sitelinks, update_account_callouts). It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5, but an agent can route correctly from the name and first clause.

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?

The description gives procedural guidance ('preview, then owner-approved confirm:true with the same requestId') and a caveat about not claiming sitelinks are live until status is active. However, it never says when to pick this tool over add_account_sitelinks or remove_account_sitelink, nor when a preview is required versus optional, so usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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