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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations: it discloses that rejection routes through the app refund/replacement path, that an eligible refund settles only once, that ordinary replacement planning cost may be incurred and must be disclosed before confirmation, and that it never degrades into skipping. The 'never repeat the write or create a replacement' warning directly addresses the non-idempotent, destructive nature of the call.

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 core action, then the mandatory preview/confirm protocol, then cost/auth and recovery guidance in a logical order. It is dense and sentence-heavy, but virtually every clause carries operational information; a slightly lighter structure would read better without losing content.

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, non-idempotent, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers the return of the preview call, the confirmation contract, cost implications, required permission, and post-failure reconciliation. An agent has enough to invoke it safely and recover from ambiguity.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and does: it defines actionId (stable, unchanged across preview/confirm), expectedActionHash (returned in the first call and re-supplied on confirmation), confirm (false/preview vs true/commit), and clientRequestId (stable idempotency key). Only 'reason' is left unaddressed, a small gap in an otherwise strong explanation.

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 and resource ('Reject one planned Autopilot post') and scopes it to a single planned post, which cleanly separates it from sibling tools like soclo_autopilot_approve_draft and soclo_autopilot_get_draft. An agent can identify the target operation without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the two-call protocol: first call previews the post and expectedActionHash, then confirm:true with the unchanged actionId and expectedActionHash plus a stable clientRequestId. It also names the fallback path after uncertainty (read soclo_autopilot_get_draft with the original actionId and reconcile) and specifies the required manage:autopilot scope.

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