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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the draft orders nothing and spends nothing, that a person reviews it in the cabinet, and that the tool returns status='confirmation_required' with an action_id and plan_token before any write occurs. This is substantial behavioral context not carried by the annotations alone.

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 front-loaded with the core action and the safety/confirmation behavior, with little waste. It is slightly verbose in the confirmation section, but that detail is materially useful.

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 that there is no output schema, the description supplies the key return behavior (status, action_id, plan_token) and the two-step confirmation flow. It gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly and avoid mistaking it for a direct write.

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?

The description clarifies the semantics of 'items' as all at-risk items, given SKUs, or the default of every shortage/order_now item, which meaningfully supplements the schema's partial coverage. The 'name' parameter remains undocumented, but the added meaning for the main content parameter is strong.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a DRAFT purchase plan') and names the source of the content ('the latest calculation's recommendations'), making it distinguishable from confirm_action and other draft-style siblings.

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 clearly establishes the context of use: turning calculation recommendations into a reviewable draft, either for all at-risk items or the given SKUs. It also routes the actual write to confirm_action, though it does not name explicit when-not conditions beyond that.

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