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

Beyond the destructiveHint=false/readOnlyHint=false annotations, it discloses the exact two-step protocol: the tool is proposed only, returns status='confirmation_required' with action_id and plan_token, and the write occurs only after confirm_action. It also states what the confirmation line shows (item and before → after) and precisely what is left unchanged, which is far more than the annotations convey.

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 core action and dense with useful detail; every clause about immutability, ambiguity refusal and the confirmation handshake earns its place. The colons and chained parentheticals make it slightly harder to scan than it could be, but there is no 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?

For a two-param mutation tool with no output schema, it covers everything an agent needs: how to identify the item, how to handle ambiguous names, what is and is not modified, and how the proposal/confirmation handshake resolves. No material 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?

With only 50% schema coverage (the 'item' parameter has no schema description), the description compensates fully: item is the SKU or catalog name or id, price is per base unit in the item's own currency, and currency is never inferred or changed. This adds real meaning beyond the schema's bare type and length constraints.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Change the SALE price of ONE catalog item (the price per base unit)'. It explicitly excludes other price dimensions (purchase cost, customers' prices), so an agent can tell it apart from a generic product update or from erp_product_search.

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?

It explains the ambiguity policy clearly ('a name matching several items is refused — ask which one, never guess') and anchors the unit semantics to erp_product_search. It does not explicitly name which tool to use instead for other price fields, so the routing guidance is clear context rather than full when/when-not coverage.

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