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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail the annotations cannot: the preview/confirm safety flow, the requirement for explicit user approval, and partial-failure semantics ('Fields that were edited again after the change are left alone and listed'). That tells the agent exactly what will and will not be destroyed.

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?

Four short sentences, all load-bearing; the safety-critical flow and the partial-failure caveat are front-loaded before the confirm instructions.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the workflow, approval gate, and edge case of re-edited fields, which is enough to call it correctly. It does not describe what the preview response contains or whether an undo itself can be reverted, leaving minor gaps.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description restates what the schema already documents (change_id from change_history, preview_id from the preview call, confirm only after approval) rather than adding new per-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?

States a specific verb (Reverses) and a specific resource (a change Pridly made earlier), and routes id lookup to the change_history sibling. An agent can distinguish this from cancel_scheduled_change because it explicitly scopes to changes already made.

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?

Gives a clear two-phase protocol (preview first, then confirm) plus the mandatory user-approval gate, and points to change_history as the source of ids. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g., use cancel_scheduled_change for not-yet-applied changes), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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