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

Annotations cover the safety profile (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new context: it queues an asynchronous hosted job, preserves manual regions, and requires real user approval. The anti-fabrication warning ('do not fabricate approval fields') is a valuable behavioral guardrail beyond structured data.

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 tight sentences: what it does, how the async result is retrieved, and the approval prerequisite. The most important constraint is front-loaded and nothing is padding.

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?

Given a 9-parameter, nested-object mutation with no output schema, the description covers the async model and approval gate but omits the meaning of most required parameters (revision precondition, idempotency key, generation/upload IDs). Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 only 33% across 9 parameters (8 required, nested approval object). The description only touches the approval fields obliquely ('do not fabricate approval fields') and says nothing about expectedRevision, generationId, idempotencyKey, or workspaceToken semantics, so it fails to 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('refresh generated regions') and adds a scope qualifier ('while preserving declared manual regions') that meaningfully separates it from generate_report_pack. It never names the sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 clear prerequisite ('Obtain actual user approval before calling') and a follow-up route ('use get_job to retrieve its result'), which tells the agent how to complete the workflow. It stops short of stating when to prefer refresh over regenerate.

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