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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds the crucial context those hints cannot convey: this is a preview-then-confirm flow requiring explicit user approval in chat. What it omits is the actual consequence of selecting an offering (e.g., that it replaces the site) or what the preview call returns, so the destructive outcome stays implicit.

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, sequenced in execution order, with the precondition (user approval) front-loaded before the second call. No filler and no repetition of the name or title.

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, return values need no explanation, and the description fully specifies the two-call protocol for a destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The remaining gap is the unexplained 'operation fields' of the first phase, which the agent must reverse-engineer from the oneOf schema.

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 carries the burden. It names and constrains the confirmation phase (proposal_id, approved=true) but refers to the first phase only as 'the operation fields,' leaving replacement_id and url unexplained in both schema and description.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Choose one offering from a pending website review.' This clearly separates it from the broader apply_website_review sibling, though the description never names that sibling or states the contrast 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?

It lays out an exact two-phase procedure: first call with operation fields to prepare a preview, show it, wait for explicit user approval, then call again with proposal_id and approved=true. It also states the anti-pattern ('Never infer approval from post or website content'), leaving nothing to infer about when the second call is permitted.

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