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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that it 'creates' a signed change and requires a specific confirm value, but it does not explain side effects, prerequisites beyond confirm, or what 'signed' entails.

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 description is a single sentence that immediately states the purpose and a critical constraint. It is efficient, though it sacrifices some necessary detail.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not cover the items structure, required fields meaning, or what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 0%, yet the description only addresses one parameter (confirm) by mentioning its required value. It fails to explain the other 9 parameters, including the required items array, communityCode, timezone, and requestor.

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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and resource 'signed plan tier change', and it distinguishes itself from siblings like change_plan and confirm_plan_tier_change by specifying a key requirement: 'Requires confirm set to CHANGE_TIER.'

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?

The description hints at a specific usage scenario (must set confirm to CHANGE_TIER) but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to similar tools like change_plan or confirm_plan_tier_change.

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