Apply a pricing decision to Wheelhouse

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it confirms the tool mutates prices, requires explicit confirmation, snapshots prior rates for reversibility, and requires an API key. No contradictions.

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?

The description is two well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the primary action and its mutability; the second provides critical usage details (dry-run, snapshot, API key). No wasted words.

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?

The description explains the dry-run preview and the write behavior, and mentions the snapshotting for revert. It lacks explicit details on the output format (e.g., confirmation response), but given the tool's write nature, this is adequate.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context beyond parameter descriptions by explaining the dry-run behavior and the conditional writing based on confirm. This helps the agent understand the interplay between parameters.

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?

Clearly states the tool applies a pricing decision to Wheelhouse, writing fixed custom rates for gap nights. Distinguishes from sibling tools like propose_decisions and revert_decision by specifying the action (apply vs propose/revert).

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?

Describes the dry-run default and the need for confirm=true to write, and mentions the snapshotting for revert. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings, though the context implies it follows propose_decisions.

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