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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the description is not the sole source of safety context. It does add genuinely non-obvious behavior: changes are held behind a summary first while Autopilot is on, and there is no output schema, so telling the agent a ready-to-read summary appears in `say` is useful return-value context.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the mutation and its field scope, then the conditional hold behavior and the output location. Minimal waste, though the opening sentence is a pure restatement of the title.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the two things an agent could not guess: the held-summary confirmation loop and that the summary is returned in `say`. It stops short of stating what happens when Autopilot is off, or that confirmation_token becomes necessary on the second pass, which the schema only implies.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including ranges and the confirmation_token contract. The description restates the three setting names but adds no syntax, default, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 (Change) plus resource (Autopilot) and enumerates the three mutable settings (minimum match, daily limit, CV), which maps cleanly to the schema fields. It is not differentiated from the related siblings autopilot_status, switch_autopilot, or set_screening_autopilot, and the first sentence duplicates the title verbatim rather than adding to it.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The clause 'Held with a summary first while Autopilot is on' implies a precondition (Autopilot enabled) and a two-step confirmation flow, but the agent must infer that switch_autopilot/autopilot_status are the adjacent tools.

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