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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds substantial context on top: the change is frozen from prepare time, the call is single use, it expires in ten minutes, and it is bound to the sign-in identity that prepared it. That is exactly the operational detail an agent needs before committing a destructive, non-idempotent write.

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, front-loaded with the action and the source of the change, then the non-obvious constraints. No filler and nothing repeated from the title.

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 one-parameter destructive confirmation tool with a rich annotation set and no output schema, the description covers staging, single-use, expiry and identity binding well. The remaining gap is what 'intent' should contain and what a successful apply returns or fails to do.

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?

'intent' is undocumented in the schema (0% coverage) and the description never defines its format or purpose. It does add one useful clarification, that the real change payload is not passed here, which limits the risk of the agent stuffing change data into this argument, but the semantics of the single required parameter remain unclear.

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 ('Apply') and an exact resource ('a listing change staged by update_company_profile'), and it explicitly pairs this tool with the sibling that stages the change, so an agent can distinguish it from prepare-style and other confirm_* tools.

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 clearly places this tool after update_company_profile and warns that the arguments supplied here are ignored, which is real usage context. It stops short of naming explicit exclusions or failure conditions beyond the expiry and single-use rules.

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