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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description adds the non-obvious fact that the token is one-time, which is genuinely useful. It does not disclose what the destructive action actually changes (campaigns/adsets/funnel structure), nor what happens on token reuse or failure.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the token requirement is stated up front. It is arguably over-compressed for a destructive four-parameter mutation, but every word earns its place.

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, confirm-gated mutation with four parameters and no schema documentation, the description omits what is applied, what gets modified or destroyed, prerequisites (a prior prepare call), and the role of the optional product parameters. The presence of an output schema excuses return-value explanation but not these gaps.

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% and only confirm_token is discussed in the description. The three optional parameters (product_ref, product_name, allow_zero_volume) get no meaning or interaction guidance anywhere, leaving the caller unable to judge when they are needed.

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 ('Apply') and resource ('a prepared funnel'), and ties it to a confirm token, so the agent can tell this is the execution step of a two-phase flow. It stops short of naming products_funnel_prepare, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

'Apply a prepared funnel with its one-time confirm token' implies this must follow the prepare step and that the token is required, but it never says when to use this instead of other confirm/deny siblings or what to do if the token is missing or expired.

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