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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond them: a post-approval refusal condition and a client-communication guard ('Do not tell the client the deposit is waived unless the record already says so'), which prevents a real error.

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, front-loaded sentences that each carry distinct information. The middle sentence is slightly dense, but no sentence is filler and the imperative action leads.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the mutation's workflow position, a refusal condition, and a client-communication rule; it could say more about permissions or the effect on existing deposit records, but it is serviceable for a single-parameter mutation.

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 0% and the description never mentions scheduleId, so it does not compensate for the undocumented parameter. With only one obvious required UUID param and an existing output schema, this is a modest gap rather than a critical one, warranting the middle score.

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+resource ('Waive the deposit'), and the second sentence ties it into the workflow with accept_schedule_change. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like record_deposit or mark_deposit_paid, though it does not explicitly contrast the core action against them.

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?

Provides a concrete precondition and failure mode: waiving is refused after the schedule is approved until accept_schedule_change applies a waive_deposit suggestion. That tells the agent when the call will succeed, but it does not discuss alternatives (e.g., suggest_schedule_change) beyond the referenced workflow tool.

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