Draft changes to a custom conversion goal

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true); the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the preview shows the action list before and after, empty parameters are no-ops, and the result must be confirmed. It still doesn't quantify side effects beyond the goal's action list.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the replace warning, then the preview/apply contract. Efficient overall; the trailing API documentation URL is the only element that doesn't earn 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 4-parameter draft-mutation tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose, preview behavior, and the confirm step. Complete enough to invoke correctly, missing only edge-case handling (e.g., invalid IDs, name collisions).

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the critical replace-vs-append semantics for conversion_action_ids and reinforces the empty-means-unchanged convention, which is exactly the kind of trap an agent would otherwise fall into.

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 ('Rename and/or re-scope an existing custom conversion goal') and flags that it is a PREVIEW, which cleanly separates it from the create-oriented draft_custom_conversion_goal and the draft_clear_custom_conversion_goal siblings.

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 names the follow-up path: 'The returned plan_id is applied with confirm_and_apply.' That gives clear workflow context, though it does not state when to prefer this over direct update paths or list any prerequisites/exclusions.

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