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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The phrase "for approval" adds genuine context not present in the annotations — this stages a change rather than applying it — but nothing is said about validation, whether the staged change expires, idempotency, or what the approval handoff requires.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is structurally sound. However, for a 7-parameter, 5-required tool that overlaps heavily with named siblings, seven words is under-specification rather than effective concision.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but that is the only mitigating factor. With 0% schema description coverage, 7 parameters, a required-field set of 5, and numerous overlapping prepare siblings, the description leaves an agent without enough information to call this tool correctly.

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 0% across 7 parameters, and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. Nothing explains the enum pairings, the entity_id/ad_account_id formats, or the role of expected_current (apparently an optimistic-concurrency guard) or connection_context, so the description does not compensate for the documentation void.

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?

"Prepare a Console delivery change for approval" gives a verb (prepare) and a broad resource (Console delivery change), but never states the scope it actually covers — entity_type campaign/adset/ad and action budget/bid/status — which is exactly what distinguishes it from the many sibling prepare tools. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this is the generic path or a specialized one.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. With siblings like adsets_prepare_budget_change, adsets_prepare_bid_change, campaigns_prepare_status_change and products_delivery_pause_prepare present, the absence of any selection guidance is a real gap.

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