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 largely covered. The description still adds real value by stating that the save starts nothing and is staged for agency approval, plus the Autopilot/shadow allowance. It does not explain what the destructiveHint actually overwrites, which is the remaining gap.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the prerequisite and then the execution context. Three sentences with no filler. Minor room to tighten the parenthetical, but it earns its place by preventing misuse.

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 six-parameter save tool with a rich nested schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite ordering, approval staging, and Autopilot-run eligibility. The only meaningful omission is what happens to any pre-existing plan on save, which is relevant given destructiveHint=true.

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 83%, so the schema already explains the checklist, expectations, strategy, and other fields well. The description adds a useful operational rule for the checklist parameter (compare against channel_plan_get), but otherwise does not add syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 — saving Autopilot's plan for a newly linked account — and immediately scopes it with 'for the agency to approve (it starts nothing)'. That distinguishes it from the approval/decline siblings without requiring the schema to be opened.

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 names the context (an account linked after client set-up) and a hard prerequisite: check every channel_plan_get checklist item against the real account first. It also clarifies that the tool is permitted in Autopilot runs, including shadow mode. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with channel_plan_approve/decline, but the approval-flow context makes the sequence clear.

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