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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds the crucial context of what is modified (step 2 amounts), that entries mirror read_tax's to_book, that it self-skips when already applied, that user confirmation is required, and what it returns (applied and a snapshot). Nothing material is withheld.

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?

Front-loads the core effect, then layers the button equivalence, no-op condition, prerequisites, and confirmation. Slightly dense with domain terms (to_book, ink2Help, aktuellSkattHelp), but every sentence carries operational information; nothing is padding.

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, state-mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, no-op behavior, confirmation, and return values. An agent has enough to decide and call it safely.

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?

The single draft_id parameter has 100% schema description coverage, already stating the source (list_drafts) and the ownership constraint. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema does the work and the baseline of 3 applies.

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: it adjusts the income statement and balance sheet in step 2 using the tax from step 3. It also ties itself to a concrete sibling (read_tax / to_book) and to the equivalent UI button, so an agent can distinguish it from read_tax and update_fields.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions (step 3 completed and the tax calculation visible via ink2Help/aktuellSkattHelp), an explicit no-op case (applied = false, nothing already adjusted), a confirmation requirement ('Fråga användaren först'), and points to read_tax for the underlying data. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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