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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior, and it does so for the most critical aspects: it is a restricted mutation and requires a Schnorr-signed proof. This adds real auth context beyond the raw schema. It does not mention reversibility or side effects, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the core operation appears first, followed by the critical restriction. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

The description covers the operation and auth requirement, and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, parameter semantics are entirely absent, and there is no comparison to related pricing-model tools, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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%, and the description does not explain model_json or dpop_token at all. The proof requirement hints at authentication but is not tied to the parameters. With no schema descriptions and no compensating detail, the agent cannot determine what values to provide.

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 specific action and resource: 'Set the active pricing model.' This clearly differentiates from siblings like get_pricing_model and reset_pricing_model. The RESTRICTED-to-operator note adds useful scope without ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_pricing_model or reset_pricing_model. The auth requirement is stated, but the description does not address selection context or exclusions.

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