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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the server persists the accepted ownership wording with the source change, and the call requires an explicit legal attestation with a fixed version string. It does not discuss retry/failure behavior for a non-idempotent confirm.

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 short sentences: sequencing first, then the required attestation values, then the scope boundary. No filler, no restatement of the name, and the most decision-relevant fact leads.

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, non-idempotent confirm step with an output schema present, the description supplies everything the agent needs: when it is valid, what values to send, what the server records, and what this tool deliberately does not do. Return values are left to the output schema, as appropriate.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still earns credit by explaining the intent behind the two const-valued flags (ownershipAccepted=true and ownershipVersion=2026-09-27) — that they attest to the exact statement shown — which is semantic meaning the enum/const alone doesn't convey.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource pair ('verify and attach the archive to the owned draft') and pins the exact lifecycle moment ('after the signed PUT succeeds'), which distinguishes it from z2h_request_source_upload and the listing-management siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling tool outright, but the sequencing makes the boundary unambiguous.

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?

Gives a clear precondition — call only after the signed PUT completes — and an explicit exclusion: 'Final review and publishing stay in the web wizard,' so the agent won't try to over-extend this call. No alternative tool is named as a substitute, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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