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

Annotations already flag a destructive write (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds materially: a preview/apply two-step, a hard floor constraint that is never breached, and a required human approval gate. This is genuine behavioral disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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 'ACTION.', then scope, then constraint, then mode split, then the approval rule. No sentence is wasted and the most decision-critical information (preview before apply) is prominent.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation risk, the floor safeguard, and the confirm workflow. The only notable omission is the confirm_id round-trip, which is left entirely to the schema.

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 83%, so the schema already carries most parameter docs. The description nonetheless adds real meaning for delta (default distance below Buy Box), floor (hard minimum), and confirm (apply vs preview), though it says nothing about the confirm_id token that the schema describes as the actual write token.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Reprices the given SKUs to win the Buy Box' with the mechanism (compare against Buy Box price, propose delta below, never below floor). Clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_price, bulk_update_prices, and get_buybox_prices.

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 contrasts confirm=false (preview) versus confirm=true (apply) and imposes a mandatory user-approval workflow before the write call. It does not name alternative sibling tools (e.g. update_price) when a simpler manual price change is wanted, so it falls short of full when-not guidance.

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