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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes further with non-obvious behavior: optimistic concurrency ('A conflicting revision fails without overwriting') and retry semantics ('An identical retry returns the saved offer'). It also discloses the downstream effect of the active flag on brand copy, which no annotation conveys.

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, front-loaded with the approval precondition, then lifecycle, then update mechanics, then failure and retry behavior. No sentence restates the tool name or the schema; every clause adds a rule an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 mutation tool with an output schema already present, the description covers approval, concurrency, withdrawal, and idempotent retry. The main remaining gap is error-shape guidance beyond the conflicting-revision case and any permission/auth requirements, which are not addressed.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of all six parameters, and it does for the non-obvious ones: active as a withdraw switch, offerId plus expectedRevision as the update pair, and their origin in get_brand_guide. Only brandId is left implicit, which is inferable from the name and uuid format.

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 pair and resource ('Store or revise a current offer') and implicitly separates create from update by noting that updates require offerId and expectedRevision. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like save_approved_claim or save_brand_voice 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?

Gives explicit preconditions ('only after the user approves the exact name and terms'), a lifecycle rule for withdrawal ('Set active to false to withdraw an offer'), and a routing dependency naming the sibling that supplies revision data ('from get_brand_guide'). When-to-use is fully specified rather than implied.

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