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

Goes well beyond destructiveHint=true by disclosing the approval flow (result is status=awaiting_owner with a link) and a real irreversibility boundary (revealed contacts cannot be recalled). The idempotentHint is reinforced only indirectly through the schema's client_request_id, so one minor behavioral detail is left to structured fields.

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 dense sentences: scope first, approval consequence second, escape hatch and irreversibility last. No filler and nothing repeated from the annotations or 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?

For a destructive, approval-gated mutation with no output schema, the description covers what gets destroyed, that the call does not complete immediately, what the caller receives back, and what cannot be undone. An agent has everything needed to call it safely.

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 67%, and the description compensates by spelling out what each scope value destroys, including the escalation from a single offering up to the entire account, which is more than the bare enum labels convey. It still says nothing about the id requirement or client_request_id, leaving those entirely to the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb plus the four exact resources affected (offering, need, party, account), which maps directly to the scope enum. An agent can distinguish this from save_offerings / save_need / save_party 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?

Explicitly routes the temporary-hide case to the save_* siblings with the concrete mechanism (status=paused), and states the precondition that owner approval is always required. Both the when and the when-not are named.

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