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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the non-obvious fact that the underlying product is NOT deleted, only the offering, and that it is recoverable via create_order_bump. It also instructs the agent to confirm with the user, which is real behavioral guidance beyond the raw flags.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by recovery, the preferred alternative, and the safety instruction. 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described. For a destructive three-required-param mutation, the description covers scope, side effects, recovery, alternatives, and a confirmation requirement — nothing an agent needs 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 description coverage is 100%, so pageId, pageType and productId are already fully documented in the schema, including the enum and ID patterns. The description explains the conceptual target (one page/one product) but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Stop offering') plus resource ('an order bump') plus scope ('on one checkout page or event'). It is immediately distinguishable from create_order_bump, update_order_bump, and list_order_bumps.

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 names the preferred alternative for pausing ('Prefer update_order_bump with enabled: false') and the recovery path if the bump is needed again ('can be added again with create_order_bump'). That is when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and alternatives all in one place.

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