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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses key behaviors: omitted accounts remain unchanged, no auto-confirm, and the tool never returns rupee amounts. It also states the post-write report fields (confirmed, unmapped_total, unmapped_with_balance), adding clarity about side effects and output.

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 five sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, pre-call requirement, behavioral constraints, output summary, and a safety note. It is front-loaded with the primary action and remains concise, though slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining what the agent should report after the write. Combined with the detailed input schema and annotations, it provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly, including preconditions and post-conditions.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it references 'enumerated items' and approval but doesn't elaborate on removal_token or effective_from specifics, which are already described well in 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 opens with 'Persist only the explicit account-to-centre decisions the user approved,' which specifies a clear verb (persist) and resource (account-to-centre decisions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like confirm_column_mapping or confirm_groupings by focusing on centre mappings specifically.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Before calling, show the proposal grouped by confidence tier... and get a clear approval.' It also indicates a when-not by stating there is no apply-all or auto-confirm flag. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for generating proposals, only implies them.

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