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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the exact preservation guarantees (stable identity, invoices, portal routing, accounting data) and the five-minute confirmation token. This gives the agent a rich behavioral picture of what the call does and does not do.

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 tightly packed sentences that front-load the purpose and then add preservation and return details. No wasted words, though the phrase 'Requires confirmation' is slightly ambiguous in context and could be clearer.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains what is returned (exact preview and five-minute confirmation token) and what is not done (the change is not applied). It is mostly complete for a preview tool, with the only substantive gap being the unexplained client_id input.

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 must compensate. It mentions the current name but never explains client_id, which is the other required input. 'Requires confirmation' is also ambiguous because no confirmation parameter appears in the schema. Only half the input is clarified.

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 a name-only client change') and explicitly distinguishes what the tool does from what it does not do ('it does not apply the change'). An agent can tell it apart from the sibling rename_client 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?

Provides clear usage context: requires confirmation and the current name, and returns a preview token instead of applying the change. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool (rename_client) or state when to use that instead, so it is clear but lacks explicit sibling routing.

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