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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds valuable nuance by clarifying that the destruction is scoped to the prepared edits, not the ad itself. It does not contradict annotations and provides a behavioral detail beyond the raw flag.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and key outcome efficiently, achieving maximum conciseness while preserving clarity.

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 is too sparse for a destructive operation with a required token. It omits the prerequisite that prepared copy edits must exist (via prepare), the meaning of confirm_token, and any irreversible consequences. An agent has no context to call this correctly beyond the name.

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?

The schema has one required parameter, confirm_token, and the description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description entirely fails to explain the purpose or origin of the token, leaving the agent without guidance on how to obtain or use it.

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 clearly states the action: discard prepared copy edits, and the effect: without changing the ad. It distinguishes this from the confirm (apply) and prepare (create) steps, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies the tool is for when you decide not to apply prepared copy edits, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives like confirm, nor any prerequisites (e.g., must have called prepare first). The guidance is only implied.

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