Prepare grocery-list approval

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false). The description adds genuinely useful context by disclosing that this is a staging step and that approval does not submit an order. It stops short of explaining the confirm/cancel flow or what happens if the draft is rejected.

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, action stated first and the key constraint (no order submission) front-loaded with zero padding.

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 single-parameter staging tool with no output schema this is adequate but not complete: the description never links to confirm_action/cancel_action, which is the whole point of the prepare_* pattern, and the parameter's expected state is only weakly conveyed.

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 parameter burden, but it only implies the id refers to a 'draft' list. The UUID format and the requirement that the list be in draft state are not spelled out anywhere the agent can see without parsing the pattern.

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 and resource: staging the approval of a draft grocery list. The 'draft' qualifier and 'stage' scoping distinguish it from prepare_create_grocery_list and from any true submission action, though siblings like confirm_action are never named.

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?

Usage is implied by the prepare_* naming and the clause 'Approval does not submit an order,' which sets a boundary. However, the description never says when to call it versus alternatives, nor that a subsequent confirm_action (a sibling tool) is what actually executes the approval.

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