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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the single-level undo history, the no-op behavior with a clear message when no prior change exists, and the authorization/plan gates (owner or team admin; PRO and above). The annotations already flag destructive/non-idempotent, so those need no restating; what's missing is scope — whether it only reverses estimates_update_prices and leaves other estimate setting changes (e.g., set_quote_on_calls) untouched.

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 action, then the trigger, then edge-case behavior, then sibling routing and permissions — a logical order with no filler. The phrasing 'Put back the Estimates prices' is slightly awkward but does not cost comprehension.

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 one-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, this covers authorization, edge-case behavior, statefulness, and sibling routing well. Return shape and interaction with other estimate-mutating tools are the only unaddressed pieces, and neither is strictly required here.

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% and businessProfileId is fully documented in the schema itself, including the multi-business case. The description adds nothing about the sole parameter, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('put back the Estimates prices') and pins the exact scope: the state prior to the last estimates_update_prices call. The three sibling price tools (estimates_update_prices, estimates_start_over, estimates_undo) are cleanly separable from this sentence alone.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the owner says the change was wrong, "undo that"') and names both alternatives with the condition that selects them: estimates_update_prices for a new change, estimates_start_over to delete all prices. The one-step limit also implicitly defines when this tool is not applicable.

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