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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that confirmation is required, that the operation does not delete or change invoice amounts, that it returns an exact preview, and that the confirmation token expires in five minutes. These are useful behavioral details not captured by readOnlyHint/idempotentHint alone.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded: it states the purpose first, then the confirmation requirement, then the safety and return behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 simple preview tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, safety, confirmation, and return essence. It is somewhat incomplete on the exact input shape and how the returned token is used, but the core behavior is adequately disclosed.

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 carry parameter meaning. It implies the input concerns 'selected invoices', but it does not explain the invoice_ids array, UUID format, or the 2-50 item constraint, leaving meaningful schema details undocumented.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: prepare restoring duplicate relationships between selected invoices. It also clarifies that this is a preview that does not apply the change, which distinguishes it from the sibling restore_duplicate_relationships tool.

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?

It gives clear usage context: this is a preparatory preview requiring confirmation, and it returns a token rather than applying the change. It does not explicitly name the alternative apply tool or state exclusions, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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