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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds real value: it is APPROVAL-GATED, it unlocks the command center without claiming customer coverage, and selected routes stay pending until independently verified. This state/approval context goes meaningfully beyond the annotations.

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-loaded with the critical 'APPROVAL-GATED' constraint, then three dense sentences with little waste. Some domain jargon ('command center', 'customer coverage') slightly muddies otherwise tight prose.

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 an approval-gated mutation tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation) and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the key behavioral state semantics. The remaining shortfall is the undocumented non-choice parameters, which keeps it from full completeness.

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 only 17%, so the description should compensate, and it does explain the 'choice' enum values and that testing preserves the private-test result. However, it leaves business_id, activation_session_id, idempotency_key, and the nested 'authority' object unexplained, so the low-coverage gap is only partially filled.

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 concrete action (save a customer-route choice) on a specific resource (forwarding/published_number/both/testing) after private-test proof. The core operation is identifiable, but terms like 'command center' and 'customer coverage' are domain jargon that a cold agent may not fully resolve, and no sibling tool is named for contrast.

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 an explicit precondition ('After private-test proof is complete') and an approval gate, plus clarifies that 'forwarding is optional' and 'testing keeps the existing private-test result.' It gives clear invocation context but names no alternatives or explicit when-not conditions.

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