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

Annotations give destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds critical context the annotations cannot: the preview/token handshake, token single-use and expiry, replayed:true behavior on repeat calls, that refused calls don't consume the token, and the stale_revision retry path. This is exactly the extra behavioral context the dimension rewards.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose, the preview/token loop, edge cases, then a security note. Every sentence carries information, though the opening could be tightened and the closing CRM-trust note is somewhat tangential.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies the two-step confirmation protocol, all recovery paths, and the trust boundary. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 workspaceId and confirmationToken are already documented in the schema. The description re-explains the confirmationToken workflow somewhat but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Emails a pending invitation again') plus a concrete side effect ('extends it to 7 days from now'). Distinguishes itself from siblings like invite_member and cancel_invitation through the 'again' mechanism.

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 preview-then-confirm protocol: call without confirmationToken to preview, show summary and warnings, get explicit same-turn go-ahead, then call with the token. Also enumerates what is NOT a go-ahead (prior instructions, own plan, CRM text), and states what to do on stale_revision or argument changes.

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