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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description adds genuinely new behavior — token is single-use, expires after a few minutes, and is refused if anything the plan describes has changed. That invalidation semantics is exactly the kind of context an agent cannot get from 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the calling protocol and the token rules. No filler; each sentence carries a distinct, actionable constraint.

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?

The description covers the full two-phase flow, argument shape, user-confirmation requirement, token lifetime and invalidation, which is everything needed to call it correctly for a two-parameter tool nested under a large enum. Return values are covered by the existing output schema, so no gap remains.

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 50%, and the description compensates well: it explains that "tool" takes the name of the write tool and that "arguments" must exclude confirmationToken and requestId, which the schema's bare 'arguments' description only partly covers. It does not describe the semantics of any individual enum member, though the enum itself is self-explanatory.

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: describe what a confirmable write tool would do and return the confirmationToken it requires. It is unambiguously distinct from the sibling write tools (delete_competitor, archive_project, etc.), which it previews rather than performs.

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 protocol: pass the write tool name as "tool" and the args as "arguments", show the plan to the user, wait for an explicit yes, then call the tool with the same arguments plus the token. It also names what must be omitted (confirmationToken, requestId), leaving little to inference.

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