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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds the crucial fact that prior prices survive in estimates_undo, downgrading apparent risk, and states the authorization/plan requirement. It still does not say whether the change applies immediately or how partial or ambiguous input is handled.

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, no filler, with the core action and its input constraint front-loaded and the escape hatch and permissions trailing. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition supplies authorization, recoverability, and input format. What remains unstated is the effect model (does the supplied text replace or append to existing prices) and error behavior on ambiguous wording.

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 the text parameter's description already spells out the verbatim, no-paraphrase rule with an example. The description's 'passed verbatim' phrasing reinforces that constraint but adds no new meaning for answersAssumption or businessProfileId, 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 pair ('Change or add') and resource ('Estimates prices'), plus the defining constraint that the input is the owner's exact words. It also names estimates_undo as the counterpart, so an agent can separate this from the rollback sibling without opening either schema.

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 concrete preconditions ('Owner or team admin; PRO and above') and points at estimates_undo as the recovery path, which implies when not to use this tool for restoring. It does not contrast against close siblings like estimates_try or estimates_confirm_assumption, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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