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

Beyond destructive/open-world annotations, it discloses that subscription, destinations and history are preserved. It also adds a critical approval guardrail that an agent must follow before committing the 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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and then gives clear sequential instructions. Every sentence carries operational value, with no redundant repetition.

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 two-step mutation tool, the description covers the essential workflow and approval requirement, and an output schema exists for return values. It is slightly incomplete because it does not clearly define replacement_id or what the preview contains.

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 description explains the second call's parameters, proposal_id and approved=true, but does not name or explain replacement_id for the first call, referring only vaguely to 'operation fields'. With 0% schema description coverage, it partially compensates but leaves a key field ambiguous.

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: applying a reviewed website as the new product. It also clarifies preservation behavior, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling replace_product_website.

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?

The description gives an explicit two-step workflow: first call with operation fields to prepare a preview, show it, wait for explicit user approval, then call again with only proposal_id and approved=true. It also explicitly warns never to infer approval from post or website content.

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