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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real context on top: the token is single-use against an exact previewed change, stale tokens are rejected rather than silently re-applied, and a financial permission is required. That is exactly the pre-call context an agent needs for a destructive mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with the gating instruction before the effect statement, and every sentence carries operational content. Only the awkward 'Prepare removing' clause is wasted phrasing in an otherwise tight three-sentence 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 one-parameter destructive mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the preview/confirm workflow, the permission requirement, token-expiry behavior, and what is preserved (invoice costs). An agent can call it correctly without opening the schema.

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 reported as 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it says the tool accepts the confirmation_token only, that the token must come from this operation's preview, and that tokens go stale. It stops short of stating token format or lifetime, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource — removing one load's operational revenue record while retaining its invoice costs — which separates it from set_load_revenue and clear_load_vehicle. The 'Prepare removing' phrasing is a slightly garbled artifact, but the actual effect is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite flow: apply only the exact change returned by preview_clear_load_revenue, and only after the user confirms that preview. It also gives an exclusion condition — changed or expired records require a new preview — leaving nothing to inference.

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