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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what is returned: newest proposed, applied, failed, and undone changes, each with before/after values and an id. It does not discuss pagination or ordering mechanics in depth, but the output schema and limit parameter handle that.

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 tight sentences: purpose and trigger first, return contents second, exclusion last. Every sentence adds distinct value, and there is no repetition of annotation or schema content.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, triggers, exclusions, and return shape. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters are fully described in the schema. The description does not add syntax or selection guidance beyond the schema, such as how 'system' interacts with the agent scoping. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter meaning.

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 verb and resource ('list ... changes') and names the exact scope: the AI agent's changes inside one system. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the closest lookalike sibling by saying it is not for automation rules and pointing to list_automations.

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 gives two concrete triggering situations ('what the assistant changed' and 'find a change to undo') plus an explicit exclusion with the alternative tool named. Little is left for the agent to infer about when to select this tool versus list_automations.

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