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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds important behavior beyond annotations: changes are moderated, require explicit confirmation, and do not immediately alter published revenue. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but the annotation bar is lower.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core actions and followed by the critical moderation/confirmation constraint and source format. Every sentence carries useful information with no waste.

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?

The description covers the moderation and confirmation model and source formatting, which are important for this mutation tool. It remains incomplete for a complex 8-parameter revenue submission because amount, period, currency, and action semantics are not clarified, and there is no output schema to fill those gaps.

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 only 25% across 8 parameters. The description adds meaning for target_id and sources, but leaves amount, period, currency, and the save/delete action mapping largely unexplained, so it does not compensate enough for the low schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource and enumerates three modes: add revenue, edit an approved owner record via target_id, and request deletion. It distinguishes the tool from read-only siblings like get_my_revenue by emphasizing moderation and confirmation, though it does not name an alternative 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?

It explains that all changes require explicit confirmation and moderation and never immediately change published revenue, which gives useful usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus get_my_revenue or update_my_listing, nor does it state when not to use it.

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