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

Annotations already declare destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior, yet the description still adds real value: the 'free; posts spend credits' cost note, the owner-confirmation gate, and the required optimistic-concurrency tokens that must come from a prior read. That is genuine disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger and the action, then terse sourcing notes; no filler. The telegraphic dot-notation ('control.expectedUpdatedAt') is dense but each clause carries information.

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, five-required-param compound operation with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the behavioral gating is well covered but the payload shape (plan.summary/goals/cadence, activation.quoteRef/originalRequestId) is left entirely to 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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It meaningfully explains three of five params (expectedPlanRevision, expectedControlUpdatedAt, and a fresh UUID clientRequestId) and where to source them, but says nothing about the required nested plan or activation objects, including the activation.explicit const-true gate.

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 states a specific compound action: save the plan and switch Autopilot on, gated on the owner's explicit Yes. That distinguishes it from plain soclo_agreed_plan_save or soclo_autopilot_enable, though it never names those siblings directly.

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 a clear precondition ('Owner's explicit Yes') and routes the agent to soclo_agreed_plan_read for two required inputs and soclo_agreed_plan_intent for the unknown case. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this versus the separate save/enable tools.

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