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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is to add context — which it does: it discloses the mandatory preview/confirmation handshake, that only the preview's token is accepted, and that stale or changed records force a re-preview. It stops short of stating irreversibility or what the response contains after the clear is committed.

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 sentences with overlap: the closing "Requires confirmation" restates the first sentence's confirmation requirement, and "Prepare clearing one load's saved vehicle information" sits awkwardly after the workflow instructions rather than up front. Tightening to two sentences would lose nothing.

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 destructive, token-gated mutation with no output schema, the description covers the workflow prerequisite, token lifecycle, and target of the clear. It does not say what to do if the token is rejected (re-preview vs. error surface) or what the call returns, which leaves a small gap for an irreversible operation.

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?

With only one parameter, the schema's nested description covers the token, but the tool description adds material semantics: the token must come from this operation's own preview and it expires when the underlying record changes. That expiry/invalidation rule is not in the schema and is exactly the failure mode an agent would hit.

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 first sentence names the sibling dependency explicitly ("Apply only the exact change returned by preview_clear_load_vehicle") and the third states the resource ("one load's saved vehicle information"), which maps to the title's truck and odometer fields. The odd phrasing "Prepare clearing" is slightly misleading for an operation that actually commits the change, but the overall verb+resource pairing is clear.

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 when to call (after the user confirms a preview) and when not to (changed or expired records need a new preview), and names the sibling tool that must precede it. An agent cannot reasonably call this out of order after reading it.

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