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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses token expiry and non-refreshability, workspace preparation/idempotency behavior, reconnect requirements, specific return fields, and each error condition.

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 long but well-structured with bolded sections for the outcome and errors. Every sentence carries operational meaning, though the error details and follow-up instructions could arguably be condensed.

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 2-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is complete: it covers inputs, outputs, auth, lifecycle, error handling, and next steps. An agent has everything needed to call and respond to this tool correctly.

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%, but both parameters are self-evident from their names and the schema patterns. The description clarifies that `code` is the emailed confirmation code, though it does not explicitly describe `email` beyond the schema.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Confirm'), specific resource (the code Aient emailed after signup), and the outcome (receiving an access token). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling `signup` by describing the post-signup verification step.

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?

Explicitly frames when to call it (after signup), what to do after success (reconnect, call verify_connection and get_activation_status), and what to do on failure (call signup again for expired codes, never reuse a consumed code). This is strong workflow-level guidance.

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