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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotency, but the description adds the crucial downstream effect: live storefront prices change immediately, the previous equation stops pricing at once, and every future customer quote changes. It also discloses the confirm requirement, mismatch refusal, the PROCESS_NO_LIVE_EQUATION state for unpublishing drafts, and a concrete reversal path.

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 SENSITIVE warning and the immediate price impact are correctly front-loaded, and every sentence carries procedural value. It is somewhat long and repeats the generateQuote/confirm requirement in the closing paragraph, which costs a point.

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, price-affecting mutation with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, side effects, failure/refusal behavior, the draft-no-live-equation state, an alternate invocation path, and rollback. Nothing an agent needs before calling this is missing.

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 100% and already documents confirm, equationId, and replacesLiveEquationId (including NONE and how to look up the current live id). The description restates those semantics but adds little parameter-level detail the schema does not already carry, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (publishes/makes live) and resource (typescriptEquation turned into the live pricing equation), plus the exact scope: process, post-processing, or order level. It is clearly separable from generateQuote (tests a draft) and save (generic write) which are named explicitly.

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 an explicit precondition chain (manufacturer explicitly asked, generateQuote tested on several real parts, expectations communicated) and an explicit prohibition ('never publish to try it out'). It also names the alternative path via save(entity="typescriptEquation", ...) and the reversal procedure.

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