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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real context beyond them by stating that it produces a draft plus final-delivery preview, that it shows summary/cost/scope and waits for a response, that it starts no authentication or acceptance, and that the handoff branch bypasses chat approval. It does not describe persistence or what a revision does to a previously submitted request.

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?

The gating rule comes first, then the anti-hallucination constraints, then the preview/response flow and exceptions. It is long and dense, and the interleaving of handoff and resume exceptions mid-paragraph slightly hurts scannability, but nearly every sentence carries operational instruction.

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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and 6 parameters, the description covers triggering, clarifying behavior, preview/confirmation flow, revision identity, resume, and handoff. The gap is category/stage semantics, which an agent must still infer from the schema enums alone.

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 only 17% (only 'summary' is documented), so the description carries most of the burden. It does explain summary content rules, the resume:true condition, and the journey_id/expected_journey_revision pairing for revisions, but leaves category and stage enum meanings and their selection criteria entirely unaddressed.

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?

Uses a clear verb+resource ('Prepare or revise a consultation preview') and immediately delimits scope with 'without submitting it', which separates it from submit_consultation_request. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from continue_consultation_request or prepare_consultation_change, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 states the entry condition (a real topic plus an explicit request instruction), enumerates what does NOT count as an instruction (opening tools, connecting apps, usage questions, number verification, broad delegation), prescribes the one-time clarifying question when intent exists but content does not, and forbids fabricating categories/stages or padding to hit length. It also covers the resume:true precondition and the handoff branch, so the when-to-use guidance is unusually complete.

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