confirm_order_change

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation is known. The description adds critical behavioral context: without approval_token this only proposes, meaning the action is conditional and not fully executed without approval. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, clarifying the two-phase behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical conditional behavior is stated immediately after. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It explains the conditional behavior and the resource. It doesn't mention what the response contains, but the output schema covers that. It could name a sibling like quote_order_change for routing, but the context is sufficient.

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. It explains the role of approval_token (without it, only proposes) but does not explain change_offer_id beyond its name. The description adds some meaning for one parameter but leaves the other to be inferred from the name and context.

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 uses a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('booking to a quoted change offer'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like quote_order_change (which creates the offer) and confirm_cancellation (which confirms a different action). It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the action is specific enough to be understood.

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 implies when to use it: after a change offer has been quoted, and it notes the approval_token requirement. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, but the context of 'quoted change offer' and the token condition provide clear usage context.

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