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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the meaningful context that this executes a previously confirmed preview and that tokens are stale after record changes. It stops short of saying what the user-visible result is on the audit trail or how a rejected/expired token is surfaced, which would have pushed this higher.

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 prerequisite lead-in is correctly front-loaded, but four sentences restate the same confirmation requirement ('after the user confirms that preview' and then 'Requires confirmation'), and 'Prepare removing acknowledgement' is a confusing rephrase of the title. Tightening to two sentences would lose nothing.

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, single-parameter, no-output-schema mutation, the essentials are present: the mandatory preview-confirm sequence, token strictness, and the user-visible outcome. Missing only the reversibility story and post-execution behavior on failure, which the annotations cannot supply since they carry no output information.

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 reported as 0%, so the description must carry the single parameter, and it does: it names confirmation_token as the only accepted input and constrains its provenance (the exact token from this operation's preview, post-confirmation). The expiry/regeneration rule adds genuine semantics beyond the token's string constraints.

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 names the effect concretely: removing acknowledgement from a warning 'so it is visible again,' which tells an agent the resource and the resulting state. It is distinguishable from acknowledge_invoice_warning and preview_unacknowledge_invoice_warning, though the phrasing 'Prepare removing acknowledgement' is muddled and momentarily reads like the preview step rather than the apply step.

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 states the exact prerequisite (a preview from preview_unacknowledge_invoice_warning plus user confirmation of that preview) and an explicit exclusion: changed or expired records require a new preview. The agent knows both when this tool applies and what invalidates it.

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