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

Annotations already mark this destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds what actually matters beyond them: nothing is destroyed at this step, a confirmation_token is issued, and the destructive action is deferred to confirm. It also discloses the business-rule refusal case and the auth requirement, which annotations cannot express.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the token-return contract before the constraint and auth notes. No sentence is redundant with the annotations or the schema.

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?

Output schema exists, yet the description still names the two return fields the agent must act on (summary, confirmation_token), covers the eligibility restriction and the auth path. Nothing needed to call this correctly or follow up with confirm 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents that it accepts a quote number or the id from its link. The description adds no further syntax or format detail, so it neither compensates nor detracts – 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?

Specific verb plus resource ("Prepares deleting a saved quote") with the two-step intent spelled out, and it clearly separates itself from confirm (which does the actual delete) and from cancel/duplicate siblings. An agent can tell exactly what this call does and produces without opening the schema.

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?

States the when (customer agrees, before calling confirm), the when-not (accepted and ordered quotes cannot be deleted), and the prerequisite (signed-in Printdash account, with the sign-in fallback behavior described). The routing to confirm is explicit rather than inferred.

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