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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds valuable constraints beyond annotations: the action expires after 5 minutes and can only be executed once. It doesn't mention failure modes after expiry, but with the annotation coverage this is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words: the first states the purpose, the second packs two essential constraints. The repeated tool name at the start is trivial, but every sentence carries real information.

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 2-parameter tool with rich schema descriptions and clear constraints, the description covers the core prerequisites: what the action is, when it can be executed, and its limits. It omits return-value or error behavior, but no output schema exists and the staging flow largely implies the result.

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 100%, with thorough parameter explanations: actionId is the UUID from the staging tool's response, and sessionKey has clear usage rules with OAuth vs device flow. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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: execute a previously staged destructive or financial action after user approval. This distinguishes it from siblings like payInvoice or deleteHost by emphasizing the staged-and-approved gating, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 gives clear usage context: only for previously staged actions, only after user approval, and subject to a 5-minute expiry and single-use rule. It doesn't name alternatives, but the staging-to-execution flow is implicitly defined, and this is clearly the confirmation step.

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