Restore sale access

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true; the description adds the required scope (edit_sales), the native endpoint, and the explicit per-call confirmation requirement, which is meaningful beyond the annotations. It doesn't, however, disclose side effects or reversibility in more detail.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by scope and confirmation requirements. Slightly terse but wastes no 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?

For a mutation tool with rich annotations and full schema descriptions, the description covers the essential prerequisites (scope, confirmation). It could mention side effects or the access model, but is largely complete.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (restore) and resource (sale access), and the title matches. It distinguishes itself from the inverse sibling revoke_sale_access by verb, but the description doesn't explicitly name siblings or clarify the access model (what was revoked, from whom).

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?

Implied usage: restore access, requiring confirmation. It alludes to prerequisites ('requires explicit per-call confirmation') but doesn't say when to use it vs alternatives like revoke_sale_access or refund_sale, nor when not to use it.

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