metrika_manage_prepare

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds real context beyond them: the approval is 'bound to principal, account and exact request' and 'nothing is sent,' clarifying that a write-intent tool has no side effects at this stage.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the action and gating semantics, then parenthetically lists the arg keys. No filler, though the arg list is terse enough to be ambiguous.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but with 0% schema coverage and no enum on 'operation', the description leaves the most important input (which allowlisted operation) undocumented for a mutation-adjacent gate tool.

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 do the work. It partially compensates by enumerating the expected args keys (ids, query, body, csv), but the required 'operation' parameter is left unspecified — no allowed value set is given, so an agent cannot know which operation strings are valid.

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: 'Open an approval for one allowlisted Metrika write/upload.' The clause 'nothing is sent' implicitly separates it from metrika_manage_apply/reconcile, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 'prepare'/'nothing is sent' — an agent can infer this precedes an apply step — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among metrika_manage_read/apply/reconcile.

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