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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: all-or-nothing atomicity, single application, staleness guard ('if the configuration has not changed since'), and the authorization requirement ('Admin or owner only'). The one gap is that the connection-key branch means the call sometimes does not mutate at all, which complicates the destructiveHint=false reading without quite contradicting it.

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?

Five short sentences, sequenced as step position, effect, preconditions, permissions, and the exception branch. No filler and nothing is buried.

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 no output schema, the description covers the atomicity guarantee, the approval prerequisite, permission scope, and the deferred-approval return path, plus where to read the result. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it.

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 single plan_id is fully documented within the schema itself, so the description only reinforces provenance ('the plan_id that plan_config_change returned'). Baseline 3 is appropriate; no extra format or error semantics are added.

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+resource ('applies exactly the plan that plan_config_change returned') and ties itself to a sibling's output, so the agent can tell it apart from plan_config_change and config_approval_status. The 'Step 2 of 2' framing front-loads its place in the workflow.

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 explicit preconditions ('only after the user approved that plan's diff'), the alternative path ('with a connection key it does not apply: it returns an approval link'), and names the follow-up reader (config_approval_status). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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