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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the genuinely useful part – this produces a summary plus a confirmation token that must be relayed and awaited. It stops short of stating token lifetime, whether the preview expires, or what happens if the token is reused.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first establishes the read-only nature, the second gives the required agent workflow. The key constraint is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

With six optional parameters, 83% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description usefully reveals that the return carries an automation summary and a confirmation token – information an agent would otherwise lack. It does not say which automation is selected when automation_id is omitted, a minor remaining gap.

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 83%, so the schema already documents uid, bearer_token, conversation_id, preferences_mode and agent_preferences; only automation_id is bare. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns no premium.

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?

"Read-only deletion preview" states a specific verb (preview) and resource (automation deletion), and it explicitly names the sibling it precedes, delete_automation, so an agent can separate the two without opening either 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?

It gives an explicit workflow condition: show the summary and confirmation token to the user, then wait for a new confirmation turn before calling delete_automation. That is both the when (before a destructive call) and the ordering constraint, leaving nothing to inference.

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