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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the exact failure behavior (409 `change_packet_confirm_required`), that nothing mutates on that path, that the error carries answer/edit counts, and the escape hatch (confirm_drops=true). This is genuinely useful behavioral context for a destructive mutation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the failure behavior, then the remedy. No waste and the critical safety information is not buried.

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 with no output schema, the confirmation/error behavior is well covered. However, it omits permission/auth requirements and, more importantly, the meaning of five undocumented parameters (including expected_draft_revision concurrency and idempotency_key), so the definition is not fully self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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 6 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It explains only `confirm_drops` (and its default semantics) while offer_id, packet_id, idempotency_key, request_id, and expected_draft_revision receive no meaning beyond their names — leaving the optimistic-concurrency and idempotency parameters entirely unexplained.

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 verb and resource: 'Replace the offer's documents with a different packet.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling document operations (add/edit/remove/reorder), though it never names those siblings explicitly to route the agent.

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 context on the two-phase confirm workflow: if answers/edits would be lost, nothing changes and a 409 is returned, and the agent must repeat the call with confirm_drops=true. It doesn't name alternative tools or say when to prefer this over documents_add/edit, but the conditional confirmation guidance is strong.

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