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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, open-world), so the description adds real context: the operation mutates installation state by re-queuing setup, clears the recorded error, and requires agency write access plus an up-to-date revision. It still doesn't say whether setup restarts from scratch or resumes, or what happens to already-provisioned state.

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: the action and its effect come first, then the authorization and concurrency constraints. No filler, no repetition of the title, and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining essentials: mutation effect, error clearing, permission requirement, and revision precondition. The only meaningful gap is guidance on choosing among the several sibling retry tools.

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 60% and every required parameter already carries a schema description, including the optimistic-concurrency meaning of expectedRevision. The description restates the revision requirement but adds nothing about partnerId, installationId, or the optional accepted/fingerprint fields, so it lands at the baseline rather than compensating for the coverage gap.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Re-queues an installation') plus a concrete effect ('setup runs again, clearing its last error') and defines the domain term setup ('configures the client's voice agent'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as retry_setup or retry_activation_notification, so it stops short of a 5.

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 rather than stated: 'clearing its last error' signals this is the recovery path after a failed setup. The description names prerequisites (write access, current revision) but never says when to prefer this over sibling retry tools or what conditions make a retry inappropriate.

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