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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, non-idempotent, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-structured trait: the two-phase commit where phase 1 is a non-committing preview returning a token and phase 2 commits, which materially changes how the agent should call it. It does not, however, explain what the 'destructive' effect actually destroys or retry behavior, keeping it at 4.

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 sentences, zero waste: the core action and scope are front-loaded, and the phase mechanics follow immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description usefully discloses what phase 1 returns (confirmation token + preview) and what phase 2 does, and annotations carry the safety profile. It leaves the post-enable effects and failure handling implicit, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds relational meaning the per-field schema does not: it clarifies that confirmation_token is omitted on phase 1 and required on phase 2 to commit, tying the parameters into the two-phase flow rather than describing each in isolation.

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 (Enable/activate), the resource (agent), the eligible states (paused or draft), and the resulting effect (begins discovering leads on its schedule). This is clearly distinguishable from pause_agent (inverse) and enable_campaign (different resource) without opening any schema.

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 scopes applicability to 'a paused or draft agent' and lays out the two-phase call sequence, which tells the agent exactly when and how to invoke it. It stops short of naming alternative tools or stating when-not-to-use, so it lands just below the top band.

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