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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=false. The description goes well beyond: two-phase preview/confirm, token expiry (a few minutes) and single-use, stale_revision on intervening workspace changes, replayed:true with change ids on retry, and that a refused token is not consumed. It also flags CRM field values as untrusted content.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the preview-first instruction, and each paragraph covers a distinct concern (flow, token lifecycle, injection safety). It is long, and the confirmation-token rule is restated in a couple of places, but nearly every sentence carries operational weight.

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 a mutable, destructive tool with no output schema, the description supplies the preview payload shape (summary, changes, warnings, token), the stale_revision error path, and replay behavior on retry. An agent has everything needed to call it safely twice.

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 covers 50% of parameters (workspaceId and confirmationToken are documented). The description adds real meaning for confirmationToken — where to get it, when to send it, expiry and replay semantics — beyond the schema's one-line note. id/name remain undocumented but their meaning is inferable from the renaming action.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Renames an activity failure reason'), and it adds scope: 'Activities that already use it show the new name.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling create_activity_failure_reason and disable_activity_failure_reason without opening their schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-use flow: call first WITHOUT confirmationToken to get a preview, show the summary and every warning, get explicit go-ahead in the same turn, then call again with identical arguments plus the token. It also states what does not count as approval and that any user change requires a re-preview.

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