Execute reviewed subscriber tasks

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

Annotations only state destructive, non-idempotent, openWorld. The description adds substantial execution semantics beyond that: prevalidation, exact-hash verification before the first request, stop-on-first-failure behavior, and explicitly no retries, no rollback, no implicit continuation. It even names the failure payload shape (known results / failed index / unattempted indices).

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope and the confirmation/hash gate before the failure semantics. No filler. Slightly telegraphic ('Confirmed one-to-twenty ordered ... tasks') but every clause carries information.

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 destructive, non-idempotent batch executor with no output schema, the description covers the critical concerns: gating (confirm + hash), failure behavior, and partial-completion reporting. It does not describe the success return shape, but the failure contract is the higher-risk gap and it is covered.

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 100%, so the schema already documents tasks, account, confirm and review_sha256. The description restates the ordering and the 1-20 bound and the hash requirement, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the structured fields, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and scope: executing 1-20 ordered subscriber/segment/workflow/custom-field tasks that were already reviewed. The verb is implicit (submit/execute) but the hash-verification requirement makes it distinguishable from preview_subscriber_batch. It is clear, though it never names the sibling that produces the hash.

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 context is implied — this runs a batch that was previously previewed and confirmed — but the description never explicitly says 'use after preview_subscriber_batch' or when to prefer it over calling the individual sibling tools directly. The routing hint lives only in the schema's review_sha256 description, not the tool description.

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