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

The confirm-gating disclosure ('previews until confirm: true') is genuinely useful behavioral context for a mutation tool whose only annotation is readOnlyHint=false. However, it says nothing about billing impact — proration, when the new tier takes effect, whether a downgrade is allowed, or whether the change is reversible.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the confirm gate in parentheses. No wasted words, though the parenthetical format slightly buries a critical operational detail.

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 billing-adjacent mutation with no output schema and only one annotation, the description covers what the tool does and the confirm safety gate but omits downstream effects an agent would want before calling it (pricing changes, effective date, required permissions).

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 33%, so the schema documents just 'confirm'; the description adds no detail on organizationId or on what valid tier values look like beyond pointing at list_organization_seat_tiers. That pointer does add real value for the 'tier' parameter, but the coverage gap on the two required params remains.

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 ('Move') and a precise resource ('a gym's seat subscription') plus the target ('a different tier'), which is unambiguous. It also names the sibling list_organization_seat_tiers as the place to find tiers, though it doesn't contrast with cancel_/resume_organization_subscription.

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?

'Move ... to a different tier' implies the use case, and pointing at list_organization_seat_tiers is a helpful discovery hint. There is no explicit when-not, no prerequisites (admin role, downgrade restrictions, active-subscription requirement), and no comparison to the cancel/resume siblings.

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