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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, correctly signalling that the preview itself mutates nothing, and the description is consistent with that. It adds real context beyond the annotations — token is single-use, expires in minutes, and is refused if the underlying state changed — but omits how the token/arguments are correlated or what the returned plan contains, so it is good rather than comprehensive.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then the parameter contract, then the human-in-the-loop workflow, then the token lifecycle. Every sentence is load-bearing and no instruction is repeated.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the two required parameters, the user-confirmation protocol, and token invalidation rules. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and then safely invoke the target write tool.

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 50% (the 'tool' enum has no schema-level description), and the description compensates well: it names both parameters and specifies the exact argument set to pass, excluding confirmationToken and requestId. It stops short of explaining how 'arguments' shape is validated per selected tool.

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 its confirmationToken — which is unambiguous and unlike any sibling (get_* / list_* / the write tools themselves). An agent can immediately tell this is a pre-flight preview step, not the write itself.

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 workflow: pass the write tool name and its arguments, show the plan to the user, wait for an explicit yes, then call the tool with the same arguments plus the token. The condition for use (confirmable write tools) and the exact sequencing are both stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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