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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the two-step approval flow (an owner or admin must approve in Vibeking, never through the MCP), the undo_of linkage on the created proposal, the unsupported-error behavior for posts, and plan eligibility. These are consequential facts an agent could not infer from readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and its per-type semantics, then the approval constraint, then the exclusion and plan gate. No filler, and each clause carries distinct operational information.

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 proposal-creating mutation with no output schema, the definition covers what it does, what it produces (a new proposal with undo_of), who must approve it, where approval happens, failure modes, and eligibility. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only indirectly clarifies change_id by tying it to carried-out (status done) changes; it adds no meaning for the reason parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource ("Propose reversing a carried out ad change") and scopes it precisely to changes with status done. It even spells out the semantic inversion per change type (pause becomes resume, resume becomes pause, budget reverts), which no sibling name or schema field conveys.

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 inclusion criteria (status done changes) and an explicit exclusion (posts cannot be undone or cancelled, error code unsupported), plus a plan gate. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative such as propose_ad_change or explain how to pick between proposing an undo versus a new change, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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