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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false; the description adds the crucial behavioral fact that nothing is mutated yet and that a follow-up confirm_change is required. It doesn't mention idempotency or re-running behavior, which is relevant given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the preview semantics and closing with the commit condition. 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?

The preview/confirm workflow is fully conveyed and no output schema exists to explain, but with three parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotation detail beyond safety hints, the definition leaves parameter usage entirely opaque. Adequate for the workflow, incomplete for invocation.

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% and the description says nothing about any of the three parameters. In particular declared_implemented_at (an optional date-time) is completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving its format and purpose unexplained. No compensation for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('declaring that the work of an open Action is done') plus the distinguishing trait that this is only a preview. It also names the sibling confirm_change that actually commits the change, so an agent can tell it apart from a direct write.

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?

Explains the workflow context clearly: use this first, then get user agreement, then call confirm_change. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it (e.g. vs update_action_status or read_actions) and doesn't state prerequisites such as the Action needing to be open, but the two-step routing is unambiguous.

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