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

Annotations already disclose that the operation is non-read-only, destructive, idempotent, and not open-world. The description adds useful confirmation-workflow context and specifies the field being changed, but it does not elaborate on reversibility, failure behavior, or what happens if the digest/approval does not match.

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 compact and front-loaded: the execution purpose comes first, followed by the required guard parameters. There is no filler and every clause contributes to selecting or invoking the tool.

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 and annotations cover safety and idempotency, so the description does not need to explain return values or the basic safety profile. However, for a five-parameter destructive confirm tool with zero schema property descriptions, it leaves important parameter semantics and failure behavior under-specified.

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 five parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only names the two required parameters. It implies old_value/new_value through 'from current to approved value' and entity_name through 'one Meta ad', but it does not meaningfully explain the optional parameters or the approval/digest semantics.

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 states a specific action and resource: it runs a confirmed change that sets the reviewed link field of one Meta ad from its current value to an approved value. This clearly distinguishes a confirm/execute operation from prepare or deny siblings, though it does not explicitly name the corresponding prepare tool.

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?

It gives clear usage context: this should be used only for a change the user has already confirmed in the conversation, and it requires approval_ref and expected_plan_digest. It does not explicitly list when-not or name the sibling prepare alternative, but the confirmation workflow is clear.

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