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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it states the tool will be 'Refused if the locator changed since the proposal was prepared,' which is a runtime failure condition the agent needs to know. It also implies a stateful workflow (proposal must exist and be agreed upon). It doesn't detail the exact side effects of making the proposal live, but the destructive annotation plus the refusal condition provide solid transparency.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second gives the critical usage precondition, the third warns about a failure condition. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains zero filler. This is an exemplary concise definition.

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 single-parameter tool with a clear destructive annotation and a well-described workflow, the description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose, the prerequisite, and a key failure condition. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe what the response looks like or what 'making live' concretely changes on the website, but with no output schema and a simple parameter set, the description provides enough for an agent to call 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% – the single parameter proposalId is fully described in the schema as 'The id returned by propose_configuration.' The description adds the context that this id comes from a prepared proposal and that applying it is the action, but it doesn't add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Make a prepared proposal live on the customer's website.' It uses a specific verb ('apply') and resource ('configuration proposal'), and distinguishes it from the sibling propose_configuration by explicitly naming that tool. The purpose is unambiguous and an agent can easily tell this apart from related tools like rollback_configuration or describe_configuration.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Only call this after showing the person the differences from propose_configuration and getting their agreement.' It also names the sibling tool propose_configuration as the prerequisite step, and warns about a condition that blocks usage ('Refused if the locator changed since the proposal was prepared'). This is strong, actionable guidance for an agent deciding when to invoke the tool.

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