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

Annotations declare destructive/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds the traits that actually matter to an agent: preview-by-default (applies NOTHING without confirm), the 1000-id ceiling, and that a store-wide exclusion persists in every feed until lifted store-wide. That is richer behavioral context than the annotations supply and does not contradict them.

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 sentences, zero padding, front-loaded with the core action and limits before the preview-vs-apply workflow. Every clause carries operational meaning.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the remaining gaps an agent needs: batching limit, feed scoping, preview safety, and store-wide exclusion persistence. Nothing required to call this destructive tool safely is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining the consequence of omitting feedId (applies to every feed) and the persistence semantics of an exclusion set without a feedId. The confirm preview/apply mechanic is largely restated from the schema, so it is not a full 5.

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 pair (include/exclude) on a specific resource (products), plus scope (bulk, max 1000 ids, one feed or all feeds). An agent can place this against set_product_override/set_product_overrides without opening any 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?

Gives explicit operational guidance: omit feedId for store-wide, provide it for a single feed, and call once without confirm to preview then again with confirm to apply. It does not name the sibling override tools or state when to prefer one over this, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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