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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description adds important behavioral context: that this is a one-time code, the conditions for failure, and that it is not final approval. However, it does not clarify the destructive nature (what is destroyed) or that idempotency is supported even though the idempotencyKey parameter hints at it.

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 just two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraints narrowed to the essential rules. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complex confirmation tool with nested objects, no output schema, and only 20% parameter coverage, the description covers the core usage and failure conditions. It does not explicitly tie parameters together, but the overall context of plan agreement is sufficient. Slight gap in explaining why idempotency matters despite the annotation.

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 only 20% (only idempotencyKey has a description). The main description explains the code is one-time and tied to the exact plan, which adds meaning to the code, revision, selection, and challengeId. It doesn't detail each parameter, but the high-level description plus the idempotencyKey description partially compensate.

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 confirms a production agreement using a one-time code, and explicitly distinguishes it from final content approval or signature. It is specific with verb, resource, and mechanism, and stands apart from sibling confirm tools by focusing on plan agreement.

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 gives clear conditions for use (only with explicitly supplied code after reviewing this exact plan) and explicitly states what fails (changed plans, other actors, expired codes, replays). It does not name a specific alternative tool, but the pair with request_plan_agreement is implied.

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