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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, non-idempotent and not read-only, and the description adds crucial context: it requires `write`, spends LLM budget charged at settlement, does not update the published final until a person renders it, and enumerates every outcome. No contradiction with annotations; the destructive hint is consistent with creating a new version and spending budget.

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?

The crucial precondition and spend-confirmation behavior are front-loaded, and every sentence carries behavioral information. It is dense and slightly run-on, but not padded with filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return fields (`outcome`, `sourceStatus`, `quote`, `runId`) and all outcome values, plus auth, budget, and side-effect details. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 only 50%, but `confirm_spend` is well documented in the schema and the description adds the quote-only behavior and what confirmation actually launches. `project_id` is self-evident by name; the description adds no further semantics but does not need to.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Rewrites a piece') and pins it to a precise precondition: the source changed after production, with a concrete status marker. This distinguishes it from generic rewrite_script and other siblings that do not require a changed source.

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?

It clearly states when this tool applies (source status is `cambiada`) and explains the two modes: quote-only without `confirm_spend`, and paid launch with it. It does not explicitly name `rewrite_script` as the alternative for ordinary rewrites, leaving that routing implicit.

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