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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotent, so safety is covered; the description still adds real behavior beyond them by stating that budgets and exact effect approval are preserved and that automatic investigations only prepare plans rather than enabling actions. It does not say what prior state is overwritten or how the destructive change manifests.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and revision scoping, then preconditions, then safeguards. Dense but not padded, though 'preserves budgets and exact effect approval' is compressed to the point of obscurity.

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 destructive, non-idempotent 12-parameter mutation with no output schema and near-zero schema descriptions, the description covers preconditions and a couple of behavioral guarantees but leaves the boolean flag semantics and the meaning of workflowProfile/caseIds entirely unexplained.

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 8% with 12 parameters, 7 required, and the description explains none of them — the six boolean toggles (enabled, knowledge, investigations, effects, allCases, automaticInvestigations), the environment enum, workflowProfile, and caseIds are all undocumented. Only the sentinel 'automatic investigations ... do not enable automatic actions' obliquely gestures at one toggle's meaning.

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 (configure) applied to a specific resource (this company's runtime and pilot), pinned to a revision. That distinguishes it from the read-only sibling summer_runtime_connection_read. The term 'pilot' is idiosyncratic and unexplained, keeping it below 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?

The precondition 'Production activation requires current readiness evidence' implies a prior check (summer_onboarding_readiness / capability checks) before enabling production. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus the read sibling, and no statement of when not to call it.

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