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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, open-world; the description adds the crucial approval gate and the preview-first phase, which materially changes how the agent should behave. It doesn't state what the retry actually destroys or whether a second retry overwrites an in-flight proposal, so a gap remains on the non-idempotent hint.

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?

Four short sentences, no waste, and the sequence is front-loaded: what it does, then the preview step, then the approval step, then the prohibition. Each sentence carries a distinct operational instruction.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the destructive two-phase flow is covered with an explicit approval requirement. Missing is any tie-in to the sibling lifecycle tools (apply/cancel/replace) that an agent would need to decide this is the right recovery path.

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 carry the load. It does explain the two branches (operation fields vs proposal_id+approved) and that the second call takes 'only' those two, which the oneOf implies but doesn't verbalize. It never says what replacement_id refers to or where to obtain it, leaving the primary input undocumented.

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 (retry) and resource (a failed website replacement review), which is clearer than a generic update. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like apply_website_review or replace_product_website, so the agent can't tell from the description alone why it would retry rather than apply.

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?

Explicitly lays out the two-call sequence: operation fields first to produce a preview, then proposal_id plus approved=true after showing the user. The 'never infer approval' line is a strong when-not rule. It stops short of naming alternatives (apply vs retry vs cancel_website_review), so it isn't a full 5.

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