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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: the workspace freezes 14 days after the plan ends, and confirm: true returns approve_url. It still omits auth requirements and does not explicitly discuss irreversibility, but it adds solid operational context.

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 short and front-loads the purpose before the confirm behavior. The phrase 'Without confirm: the questions' is terse to the point of ambiguity, but overall there is little wasted text.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, the definition leaves substantial gaps: it does not adequately explain the parameters or the distinction between take, offer, keep_editors, and confirm_token. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, and the freeze/confirm notes help, but the parameter documentation is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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% with 7 parameters, so the description must carry the burden of explaining them. It gestures at concepts such as site migration, editor retention, bookings, and confirm, but does not map those concepts to the actual parameter names take, offer, keep_editors, confirm_token, or workspace clearly enough for reliable use.

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 identifies the resource and action: preparing to end a workspace plan, including site migration, editor retention, bookings, and the post-plan freeze. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings such as save_plan, move_sites, or transfer_site, so it stops short of a 5.

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 a two-step confirm flow: call without confirm to get questions, then use confirm: true to receive approve_url. That is useful invocation guidance, but it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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