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

Annotations already flag this as a destructive, non-read-only, idempotent write; the description adds the crucial detail annotations cannot express — that calling without confirm=true is a non-destructive preview and that saving requires an explicit acknowledgment field matching the amount. That is exactly the extra behavioral context an agent needs before mutating.

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 sentences, no filler, with the tool's purpose and the destructive gating rule front-loaded. Every clause carries actionable information.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, it covers the essential safety flow. Minor gaps remain: whether an over-cap amount is rejected or clamped, and whether the new rate applies to existing versus future bookings.

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 load, and it does: confirm is a preview/save gate and acknowledgedAmountUsd must equal perMinute as a safety acknowledgment. It does not cover perMinute's numeric bounds (0.1–100, present only in the schema) or what the preview returns when the country cap is lower than the requested amount.

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 and resource (sets your public USD per-minute rate) plus the governing constraint (capped by country). It is clearly distinct from read-only siblings like get_country_rate_caps or get_rate_coach_suggestion, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Explicitly explains the two operating modes: without confirm=true it previews the country cap, with confirm=true it persists. It does not mention when to consult get_country_rate_caps or get_rate_coach_suggestion first, but the when-to-use logic for the tool itself is clear.

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