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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description goes beyond that by scoping the destruction (only that category/currency budget; invoice history and other currencies untouched), stating the settings permission requirement, and disclosing token single-use/expiry behavior.

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 key constraint (apply only the previewed change after confirmation) and dense with useful rules. Minor weakness: 'Prepare removing only the exact category/currency budget' is awkwardly phrased and slightly redundant with the opening sentence.

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 prerequisites, permission needs, blast radius, and token lifecycle — everything an agent needs to call it safely. Return-value details are the only absence, and success semantics are implied by the preview contract.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is reported as 0%, but the description supplies real semantics the schema alone would not convey: only the confirmation_token is accepted, it must come from this operation's preview, and stale tokens require a fresh preview. That is not full format documentation, so not 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('remove/delete budget') and immediately binds the operation to the exact change from preview_delete_budget, naming the sibling directly. An agent can distinguish it from preview_delete_budget and set_budget without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit sequencing rules: apply only the exact change returned by preview_delete_budget, only after the user confirms that preview, and re-preview if the record changed or the token expired. The alternative path is spelled out rather than inferred.

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