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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and the description richly elaborates beyond them: explains the preview/confirmationToken flow, token expiry, one-time use, replay behavior (replayed: true), and that refused tokens don't get consumed. It also warns about untrusted CRM field values. This is far beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured but long. It front-loads the purpose and then details the confirmation workflow. Every sentence seems to earn its place given the complexity, though it could be marginally tighter. The final warning about CRM data is a separate concern but relevant.

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?

Given the complexity of the two-step confirmation process, the absence of an output schema, and the destructive nature of the operation, the description is complete. It covers the preview/apply flow, token semantics, error cases, replay behavior, and security warnings. An agent has everything needed to invoke this 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?

The schema coverage is 67%, so the description must add meaning. The description explains the confirmationToken workflow in detail (call without it to preview, then with it to apply, that it's single-use and expires) which enriches understanding beyond the schema's brief note. It doesn't explain the 'id' or 'workspaceId' parameters, leaving some gaps.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Stops offering a failure reason for new failed activities.' It explains the scope (new failed activities) and that existing usage is unaffected, which distinguishes it from siblings like delete_activity_failure_reason or rename_activity_failure_reason. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternatives.

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 states when to use (workspace administration change), the two-step confirmation flow, when to preview vs. apply, and the exact conditions for re-previewing (stale revision, changed arguments). It also cautions about what does not constitute approval. This is comprehensive guidance.

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