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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), but the description adds substantial traits beyond them: the token is single-use, expires after a few minutes, and is refused if anything the plan describes has changed. That staleness/expiry behavior is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with function, then parameter usage, then the human-in-the-loop workflow, then token semantics. Every sentence carries distinct operational information and none is padding.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain the returned plan, and it correctly focuses on what the schema cannot convey: the end-to-end preview/confirm workflow and the token's lifetime and invalidation rules. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%; the enum of write-tool names carries no per-value documentation, so the description's explanation that 'tool' is the name of the write tool adds real meaning. It also pins down that 'arguments' excludes confirmationToken and requestId, though that exclusion is already present in the schema description for 'arguments', making it slightly redundant.

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 action (describe what a confirmable write tool would do) and a concrete output (the confirmationToken it requires), naming the resource class precisely. It is immediately distinguishable from the many write siblings it fronts (delete_competitor, archive_project, etc.) because it is explicitly the preview step rather than the mutation 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 explicit when-to-use and how-to-sequence guidance: call this first with the target tool name and its arguments minus confirmationToken/requestId, show the plan to the user, wait for an explicit yes, then call the write tool with the same arguments plus the token. The alternative to this tool (calling the write tool directly) is implicitly but clearly excluded.

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