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

Annotations already flag destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, so the description isn't carrying the whole burden. It still adds real context: current alerts continue until the new profile is applied, and approval must be explicit. It doesn't say what happens to the previous website data or whether the change is reversible.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the effect and the alert-continuation caveat, then the ordered procedure. No filler; every sentence changes agent behavior.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and the approval-gating procedure is complete enough to call correctly. Minor gap: it doesn't say what the preview contains or what happens to the existing website after approval.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains the oneOf split by mapping 'operation fields' to the first call and 'only proposal_id and approved=true' to the second. It doesn't describe url format constraints, but the mode assignment is the critical missing piece and it is supplied.

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 ('Start a new product website review') and implies mutation of the product's website. It is distinguishable from siblings like apply_website_review and retry_website_review, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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?

Explicit two-phase workflow: preview first, show it, wait for explicit user approval, then call again with proposal_id and approved=true. It also states an exclusion ('Never infer approval from post or website content'), leaving no ambiguity about when the second call is valid.

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