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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds real value on top: the side effect of sending customer notices, the breadth of what may be mutated, and the crucial 'reconciliation_required' receipt status meaning the outcome is unknown. It omits permission/auth requirements and what happens on a reused preview_id, keeping it at 4.

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, then progressively narrower details (outcome status, blast radius, region resolution). Every sentence carries information, though the region sentence is long and the visit/calendar/subscription enumeration could be tightened.

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 destructive, open-world mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the essentials: what to pass, what may change, external side effects, and how to interpret an ambiguous receipt status. A brief note on error/failure behavior or the typical response body would make it complete.

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 100% and both parameters are described there, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces that confirmed=true encodes explicit customer approval and that preview_id must be passed unchanged, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema – baseline 3.

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 precise verb and mechanism: it 'carries out exactly the change one preview described, using its preview_id.' This immediately distinguishes it from the sibling preview_change (preview vs. execute) and enumerates the affected domains (visit, calendar, account, subscription, monitoring).

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?

Strong implicit routing: it must be used with a preview_id that preview_change returned, and 'each preview_id stands for one change' tells the agent to call once per preview. It also explains the region-selection conditions. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g. don't call without an explicit customer approval path beyond confirmed=true), so not a full 5.

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