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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful operational fact not in the annotations: execution is gated on explicit user approval in BEON PASS. It does not, however, describe what activation changes or destroys.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the gate condition second. No filler, no repetition of the tool name or annotations.

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 tool with eight parameters, an approval workflow, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It mentions BEON PASS but never explains the approval parameter set, side effects on existing domains, or what success looks like.

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 description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden of explaining them, and it explains none. The BEON PASS flow implies relationships among approval_id, beon_app_id, beon_resume_id, beon_release_id, beon_environment, and beon_connection_id, but the description gives no guidance on how they combine.

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 ('Activate a verified custom domain') and the 'verified' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like supabase_initialize_domain or supabase_reverify_domain. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the action is unambiguous.

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 description implies usage by requiring a verified domain, but never states when to choose activate over initialize_domain, reverify_domain, or delete_domain, nor what the preconditions are beyond verification. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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