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

Annotations already mark this destructive, non-readonly and idempotent, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the invalidation triggers, that permissions/code-consumption/audit commit atomically, that revocation cascades to cached receipts and authenticated downloads, and that direct Snipara workspace memberships are untouched. These are exactly the failure modes and side effects an agent needs before invoking a destructive confirm.

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?

Five short sentences with no padding, and the core action is front-loaded. Phrasing like 'Permissions, code consumption and audit commit together' is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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?

The behavioral picture is unusually complete for a destructive mutation, and no output schema exists so return values need not be described. Still, the definition leaves the proposalId/challengeId semantics and the post-success outcome unexplained for a five-required-parameter tool with only 20% schema documentation, which is a real gap.

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 only 20% (only idempotencyKey is documented), so the description must compensate. It references the human-supplied 'code' and the fact that 'revisions' invalidate, which adds a little meaning, but proposalId and challengeId are explained in neither place, leaving two of five required parameters wholly opaque.

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 action (apply a human-confirmed preview using a human-supplied code) and the resource is inferable from the tool name. It does not name or contrast with the neighboring prepare/request/read dossier-access siblings, so an agent must rely on the name to place it in the workflow.

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 implies the tool is invoked after a preview has been human-confirmed and that the caller must use only the supplied code, and it lists the conditions that invalidate the attempt (changed memberships, permissions, revisions, expired codes). However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus prepare_dossier_access, request_dossier_access_confirmation, or read_dossier_access, leaving usage selection largely to inference.

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