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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds material context beyond them: it is a partial update (only supplied fields change), edits to a LIVE public listing are visible marketplace-wide, and a live edit is re-screened so the response may report it was held for review. That last point is exactly the kind of outcome an agent could not infer from annotations.

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 routing condition and deal_id requirement are front-loaded, followed by partial-update semantics, then the live-listing risk, then the dry_run procedure, then exclusions. Every sentence supplies a distinct fact; nothing is restated from the name or schema.

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 30-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: partial-update behavior, marketplace visibility, review-hold outcomes, and a safe preview workflow. It stops short of describing error cases (e.g. invalid deal_id, private visibility without password beyond the schema's note), which keeps it just under fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% across all 30 parameters, so the schema already explains each field, including the enum meanings and the visibility/password dependency. The description adds only workflow-level semantics for deal_id and dry_run; per the baseline rule, 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter detail.

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 set (edit, change, fix, reprice) against a specific resource (one of the member's own deal listings) addressed by deal_id. It explicitly separates itself from connections_deal_create and connections_deal_close, so an agent can pick the right tool 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?

It states when to use it, how to obtain the required id (connections_deals_list scope 'mine'), the constraint that it only works on the member's own deals, and names the two alternatives it is not. It also prescribes a workflow: dry_run first, then confirm with the member before the real call.

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