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

Annotations have destructiveHint: true. Description adds 'WRITE' and 'changes billing', confirming mutation. However, lacks details on reversibility, idempotency, effects on existing plans, or authentication needs. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence with API endpoint. Front-loaded with 'WRITE'. No wasted words. Appropriate for a simple mutation tool.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and destructiveHint true, description is too minimal. Lacks info on return value, error conditions, behavior when plan already assigned, or optional parameters (start_time/end_time). Not complete for effective use.

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% with individual parameter descriptions. Description does not add extra meaning beyond schema (e.g., parameter relationships, usage examples). Baseline of 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'assign/attach', resource 'pricing product plan to a customer', and effect 'changes what the customer is billed'. The 'WRITE:' prefix and API endpoint further clarify purpose. Distinct from sibling tools like amberflo_get_customer_plan.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., customer must exist, plan must exist) or when not to use. Sibling tools exist but no comparison provided.

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