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

The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, destructive, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds a concrete preview-then-confirm workflow: preview with confirm: false, describe the effect, ask the user, then repeat identical inputs with confirm: true. It also discloses the return shape with links and nextActions.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then follows with return and preview guidance. It is mostly efficient, though the return-value sentence is somewhat redundant because an output schema exists.

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 single required parameter, full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, confirmation safety protocol, preview behavior, and return expectations. An agent has everything needed to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the confirm parameter is already fully documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds workflow meaning by explaining that the exact same inputs should be repeated after previewing with confirm: false and obtaining user confirmation.

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 and resource: 'Restart your paused annual career pass', with the resumability condition. It clearly distinguishes reactivation from generic pass management, so an agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit timing and confirmation requirements: use it after the user asks to restart and confirms with confirm: true, and preview with confirm: false first. It does not explicitly name any sibling alternative such as get_pass_pause_preview, so sibling routing remains slightly implicit.

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