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

Annotations already declare destructive=false/readOnly=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the effect is enqueued as a queued task rather than executed immediately, and the call is bound to an approval_ref and plan digest, which tells the agent this is a gated, replay-safe confirmation step.

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?

A single tight sentence with the effect front-loaded and the requirement clause trailing it; nothing is padded. The only mild redundancy is restating which parameters are required, which the schema already enforces.

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 explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is meaningful coverage of the optional parameters and any explicit routing versus the many sibling confirm tools, leaving the agent to infer scope.

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 17%, so the description must carry the burden, and it mostly does not. Naming approval_ref and expected_plan_digest merely restates the required list from the schema, and the four optional count/currency parameters are given no meaning at all.

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?

States a specific verb (copy) and resource (the approved Meta ad) with a clear outcome (a queued task), which is far more informative than the name alone. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as operations_confirm_ad_grouped_copy or operations_confirm_ad_copy_update, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

"Run the change the user just confirmed in this conversation" implies the trigger condition of an approval flow, which is useful implied guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over the other confirm_* siblings or any exclusion, so usage remains inferred rather than stated.

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