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

Annotations already declare destructive/non-idempotent/open-world, and the description adds real value on top: the two-phase confirmation-token flow, what the first call returns (token + preview), and the MCP-specific single-call behavior. It does not state permission requirements or reversal options, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with the action and preconditions front-loaded, then the phase protocol, then the MCP exception. Efficient, though the phase-1/phase-2 explanation is somewhat densely packed.

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 state-changing tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, the confirmation protocol, and the MCP override, which is enough to call it correctly. It omits what the 'result' payload contains and any rollback/permission notes.

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 3 is the baseline; the description adds the meaning behind confirmation_token by explaining the phase-1 vs phase-2 protocol and that it should be omitted over MCP, which is more than the schema field text conveys.

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) and resource (agent), plus the preconditions ('paused or draft') and the outcome ('begins discovering leads on its schedule'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like pause_agent and enable_campaign.

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?

Explains when the tool applies (a paused or draft agent) and gives explicit, branch-specific instructions for the MCP path versus the two-phase path. It does not name a sibling alternative, but the trigger condition is unambiguous.

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