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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and the description goes beyond them by describing state-dependent behavior: claimed plans return original recovery references, and submitted tasks are unaffected. That scoping of blast radius is genuinely useful, though the 'recovery references' return semantics remain vague.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scoped with the unclaimed/claimed distinction and the task-cancellation caveat. No filler, though the second sentence is densely packed and slightly ambiguous in phrasing.

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, non-idempotent action with no output schema, the description covers the safety-adjacent behavior reasonably but omits any parameter guidance and does not say what the tool returns on success or how it differs from approval_plan_deny / campaigns_quick_create_deny in the sibling set.

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?

Two parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about either. The required confirm_token and the regex-constrained connection_context are left entirely unexplained, so an agent gets no help on supplying them correctly.

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+resource: 'Deny an unclaimed TikTok copy plan,' which lets an agent distinguish this from the sibling copy_ad_quick_copy_confirm without opening either schema. The mismatch between the name's 'copy_ad_quick_copy' and the title/description's 'copy draft/plan' wording is minor but slightly blurs the resource identity.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the rejection counterpart to a quick-copy confirmation. It adds one useful exclusion ('this does not cancel submitted tasks') but never names the alternative tool or states the prerequisite for when denying is appropriate.

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