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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true): it explains the vat='esclusa' yellow-flag consequence, the status side effect (editing a validato/concordato target without passing status resets it to proposto), that only validato/concordato drive the projection light, and the two-step confirm_id write flow. This is exactly the mutation-side-effect context an agent needs.

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 core purpose, then prerequisites, then parameter semantics, then the confirm instruction. Dense but each clause carries functional meaning; the middle sentences are run-on but not padded.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 9 params, the description covers auth, side effects, the preview/confirm_id write flow, and enum semantics. It could state what the response returns or how confirm_id is obtained, but it is close to complete.

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?

With only 44% schema coverage, the description fills critical gaps: vat is defined as inclusa (default, same basis as the data) vs esclusa (flagged yellow), and status is defined with default (proposto), allowed values, and reset behavior. It leaves note/acos_max/tacos_max unexplained, so not a full 5, but it meaningfully compensates for the enum semantics.

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 ('Set'), resource ('monthly sales target'), and precise scope ('one outpost (seller × marketplace) for a calendar month'). An agent can distinguish this write tool from read siblings like get_cockpit/save_cockpit without opening any 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 clear preconditions ('Owners/admins only') and an explicit workflow instruction ('Confirm amount, month and VAT with the user before saving') plus the confirm_id preview-then-write pattern. It does not name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of 5, but the when/who guidance is strong.

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