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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that it replaces the row's current amount (matching destructiveHint), requires user confirmation first, and returns a snapshot afterwards. This is useful context, though it does not describe any auth/permission requirements or what the snapshot contains.

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 action, then adds the trigger equivalence, the destructive effect, the confirmation requirement, and the return behavior in four tight sentences with no filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the effect on existing data, the confirmation requirement, and the return behavior. It is largely complete, missing only permission/auth prerequisites.

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 100% with a single parameter whose meaning (draft_id, must belong to the connected account) is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline 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 (Bokar) and target resource (årets resultat från resultaträkningen på raden Årets resultat i balansräkningen) and even pins the step (steg 2). It is unambiguous about the operation, though it does not name or contrast any sibling tool (e.g. set_first_annual_report, apply_tax_adjustment).

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 a concrete trigger condition: the same action as when the user answers Ja to the guide's suggestion, which appears when årets resultat saknas i balansräkningen. Also instructs 'Fråga användaren först'. No alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are given, so it stops short of a 5.

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