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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that the operation is approval-gated and plan-digest-guarded against stale plans, but it never states what is irreversibly overwritten or what happens when the digest mismatches.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the requirement stated last. Only the trailing 'Requires approval_ref and expected_plan_digest' partially restates what the schema's required list already encodes.

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, gated mutation with a real output schema and full annotations, the definition conveys the action, target scope, and the approval gating an agent must satisfy before calling. Return values need no explanation because an output schema exists.

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%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning. It names only the two required parameters, adding nothing about their format, lifetime, or binding semantics, and leaves new_value, old_value, and entity_name — three of five parameters — completely undocumented anywhere.

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 and resource: 'set the reviewed text fields of one Meta ad from current to approved values.' The scoping word 'one' implicitly separates it from operations_confirm_ad_grouped_copy, but it never names any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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' gives clear preconditions for use (a prior confirmation exists). It provides no exclusions or named alternatives against operations_confirm_ad_copy / operations_confirm_ad_grouped_copy, which is the remaining gap.

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