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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the two-step preview/confirm mechanic and the important fact that already-sent agreements keep frozen text, i.e. what the mutation does and does not affect. It stops short of stating permission requirements, so it is strong rather than complete.

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?

Front-loads the when-to-use condition and then the format rules in a single dense paragraph with no filler sentences. It is telegraphic in places ('Previews first; saves with confirm true once the person has said so'), which costs a little readability but nothing is wasted.

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 write with a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description covers the risky edges: preview-before-save, frozen sent agreements, body length/format conventions. Missing only permission/authorization context and any hint about what the preview returns.

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 coverage is 83% and already documents confirm, agency_values keys and limits, so the baseline is 3; the description pushes above it by explaining the markup syntax for body (headings, bullets, {{placeholders}}, optional {{#seo}} blocks) and pointing at agreement_template_get for the placeholder list — information the schema does not carry.

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 (save the agency's own agreement wording) and immediately distinguishes it from the standard default wording, which is the core ambiguity an agent would face among the agreement_* siblings.

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 an explicit gate ('Only when the agency wants its OWN agreement wording instead of the standard one (most never need this)') and names the companion tool (agreement_template_get) that supplies the placeholder list, so the agent knows both when to use and what to call first.

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