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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the permission gate, the confirmation-token workflow with its five-minute expiry, and the exact-preview return, plus an explicit statement that no mutation occurs. These are precisely the non-obvious traits an agent needs before calling a preview endpoint.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the prerequisites, then the return contract. No redundant restatement of the title and nothing that fails to earn its place.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by describing the return (an exact preview plus a confirmation token). With one required parameter and full coverage of the side-effect profile, the only omission is which rule the ID refers to and where to obtain it.

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%, so the description would ideally identify what identifier is supplied. It says nothing about the rule_id input at all. The parameter is trivially self-describing (a single UUID rule_id), which keeps this at a minimum-viable 3 rather than lower.

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 and resource ("Prepare removing a saved vendor-account rule") and explicitly scopes it as a preview that "does not apply the change", which separates it from the delete_vendor_rule sibling. An agent can distinguish preview from apply 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?

Gives clear operating context: accounting-setup permission required, confirmation required, and the returned token is valid for five minutes. It implies this is the step that precedes the actual deletion but never names delete_vendor_rule as the alternative that applies the change, leaving the pairing to inference.

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