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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains that the connector re-reads records, refuses records changed since the proposal, writes the rest, preserves undo where supported, refuses approval-required proposals, and is idempotent on repeat calls. These details give the agent concrete behavioral context for a destructive, 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?

The description is front-loaded with the usage condition and scope, then adds only operational details that matter for safe invocation. Every sentence contributes useful guidance, with no obvious 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?

For a destructive, idempotent write tool with an output schema, the description covers the important gaps: prerequisite approval, exact scope, concurrency refusal, undo behavior, approval-refusal behavior, and repeat-call semantics. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 the single proposal_id parameter is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that it applies one proposal returned by propose_changes but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action and resource: applying exactly one proposal's changes from propose_changes. It clearly distinguishes this from propose_changes by describing this tool as the write step that follows customer approval.

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 explicitly says to use only after the customer saw the proposed changes and agreed. It also gives a when-not case: proposals needing the customer's own approval are refused here with an approve link.

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