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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to prove safety, yet it still adds real substance: what is retained (pending requests, invoice history), that a token expires in five minutes, and that the change is not applied. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the destructive intent and its retention guarantees, then the confirmation/token mechanics. No redundant restatement of the name or title.

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 preview tool with no output schema, the description covers the important unknowns: retention behavior, confirmation requirement, token lifetime, and the fact that nothing is applied. It leaves the token's consumer and the parameter's role implicit.

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 0% and the description never mentions the single rule_id parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema's own field name and uuid format. 'exact ... rule' hints at precise identification but does not explain how the caller specifies it.

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 (prepare permanent deletion), a specific resource (an approval configuration rule), and a scope constraint (retaining pending requests and invoice history), plus an explicit negation ('does not apply the change'). It is distinguishable from delete_approval_rule by the preview/confirmation framing, though it never names that sibling directly.

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?

Frames the context clearly: this is the preparation step that yields a five-minute confirmation token before the actual change. 'Requires approval-scope confirmation' signals a prerequisite. It stops short of naming the alternate/next tool (delete_approval_rule) or stating when a preview is unnecessary.

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