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

Annotations already flag this as a destructive, idempotent write, and the description adds value on top: it labels the operation WRITE, explains what the mutation actually restores (the pre-skip billing date), and discloses the 409 refusal path. It doesn't say what the success response contains or whether the restored date is visible before/after, but the annotation coverage keeps the bar low.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the WRITE label and the effect, then the prerequisite, then the failure mode. The trailing endpoint/eventType detail is slightly implementation-verbose but still earns its place as disambiguation for the underlying API call.

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 3-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the operation's effect, its input dependency, and its failure mode, which is enough for an agent to decide and invoke. Only the return value on success is left implicit.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the note that skipEventId comes from awtomic_skip_next_order. The description repeats that dependency rather than adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description uses a precise verb ('undo a skipped order') and states the concrete effect ('restoring the billing date from before the skip'). It also ties itself to the sibling awtomic_skip_next_order, so an agent can distinguish it from skip/pause/set_next_billing_date operations without opening any 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?

It clearly states the prerequisite (the skipEventId returned by awtomic_skip_next_order) and a real failure condition (Awtomic refuses with 409 when the skip can no longer be undone). It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives for other billing-date changes, but the context for when to reach for it is unambiguous.

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