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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the required scope (bookings:write), that the first call is a no-op dry run, that unknown fields are refused by name, and that the second call must repeat identical arguments. This materially softens and explains the destructiveHint=true annotation by showing the confirm gate, which is exactly the context an agent needs before writing.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the auth requirement, then the two-phase mechanic. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 19-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the critical missing piece: the shape and purpose of the first call's return (summary, confirm_token). It stops short of saying what the confirming call returns or noting that items, extras, and requisites replace rather than merge sets, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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 95%, so the schema already carries the parameter detail and the baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds meaning the schema does not: confirm_token is a second-phase argument that must accompany an identical argument set, which is a calling convention rather than a field definition.

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 ("Save the offer") and immediately characterizes the operation as a two-call confirm flow, so an agent knows it mutates an existing offer rather than creating one. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as send_offer or reject_offer, which would be needed for a 5.

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?

Procedural usage is spelled out precisely: call once without confirm_token, show the returned summary to the person, and only after agreement call again with the same arguments plus confirm_token. What is missing is tool-choice guidance — when to prefer edit_offer over send_offer, reject_offer, or get_booking_proposal.

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