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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, non-idempotent, and not read-only. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that a 30-day snapshot and reload manifest are retained, and by emphasizing explicit approval.

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 two tight sentences with no wasted wording, and the core action plus prerequisite are front-loaded.

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 annotations covering safety traits and no output schema, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly. It could be slightly more complete if it explained the session parameter's role, but that parameter is already documented in the schema.

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%; session is documented in the schema, while dry_run_id and approve are not described there. The description clarifies that approve must be explicitly true and that dry_run_id refers to an approved dry-run diff, but it does not fully compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 verb and resource: 'Apply one approved dry-run diff in a luxury suite.' It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name the sibling consolidate tool that likely creates the dry-run diff.

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 establishes a clear precondition: the dry-run diff must already be approved, and approve=true is required. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name the alternative dry-run creation step, but the usage context is clear.

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