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

Annotations only say it is a non-destructive, closed-world write; the description adds real behavior: each child keeps its own consent, filing, and payment gates, idempotency handling (obey the retry key, else inspect refreshed state), and a note to trust actual_tool_output rather than issue a state-recovery call. The canned 'confirmation boundary' sentence enumerates unrelated action classes and reads as boilerplate, keeping this below a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the body is a dense block of templated labels ('Canonicality:', 'Idempotency:', 'Confirmation boundary:'), and the confirmation sentence lists action categories that have nothing to do with this tool, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description covers behavior but omits parameter meaning and return shape; it only obliquely implies output via 'trust the returned actual_tool_output and context_engineering'. Enough to call it, not enough to call it confidently.

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% across 3 parameters (companyId, packageId, and a nested _corply_context object with id/receipt). The description only gestures at 'authenticated active company access' and never explains the required ids or what the context object is for, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

The description states a concrete verb+resource: retry creation of eligible child actions in a linked package after the primary role change completes. That is clearly distinct from siblings like get_linked_package and list_linked_packages, which read rather than continue. The jargon ('eligible child actions', 'primary role change') is a bit abstract but still scoping.

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?

It implies the trigger condition — after the primary role change completes, for eligible children — and gives an auth prerequisite. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance, and the prerequisite 'every prerequisite stated above' references context the agent cannot see here, weakening the routing value.

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