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

Beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, it discloses concrete business rules: lower amounts are treated as discounts and refused, unit changes are refused, and new codes after approval are refused. These refusal semantics are not derivable from annotations or schema and materially affect whether a call succeeds.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place, with the core action and its constraints front-loaded before the pointer to alternatives. No redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description fully covers the mutation's state logic and refusals. The only gap is that the 5 required parameters lack semantic detail, consistent with the 0% schema coverage.

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, but it only implicitly references amount, unit, and code without explaining amountMinor's minor-unit format, the code/label roles, or the UUID engagementId. Most of the 5 parameters remain undocumented in any field.

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 pair (set/update) and resource (rate), and splits behavior into draft vs approved cases. It also names the routing target (file_change_order, approve_change_order), letting an agent distinguish it from siblings 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?

It states exactly when to use this tool (set draft, update approved without lowering/unit change) and when not to, explicitly naming the alternative tools for the excluded cases. Both the inclusion and exclusion conditions are unambiguous.

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