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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: the plan must not yet be shipped, the outcome is a VOIDED state, and explicit user confirmation is required first. It does not discuss irreversibility or permission requirements, so it is not exhaustive.

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 ACTION marker, then three tight sentences covering purpose, use case, and confirmation requirement. No filler, no repetition of schema content, and the most important constraints come first.

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 mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, outcome state, and the confirmation guardrail. It stops short of explaining the confirm_id preview/execute flow or failure cases, but the essentials are present.

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 67% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all: it never mentions inbound_plan_id as the target, account_id scoping, or the confirm_id two-step token flow. With a non-trivial mutation flow and an undocumented required parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 (annulla/cancel) plus resource (piano inbound FBA v2024), the precondition (non ancora spedito), and the resulting state (torna VOIDED). An agent can distinguish this from read siblings like get_inbound_plan or creation siblings like create_inbound_plan without opening the 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?

Explicitly says when to use it: reconsiderations on a plan created by mistake or no longer needed, plus a required explicit user confirmation before calling. It does not name a when-not case or point to an alternative sibling, so it falls just short of 5.

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