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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explains what gets modified, that evolved skills/activity plans are preserved unless regenerate_activities=true, and the approval workflow (manager approval, from-now-on vs just-once). This gives the agent meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

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 a crisp one-sentence purpose, then flows into routing and sensitive-tier instructions. It is slightly repetitive between the opening 'Use when' clause and the Routing block, but each section earns its place and remains scannable.

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 mutating recalibration tool with no output schema, the description covers triggers, side effects, preservation behavior, and the sensitive approval flow. It does not describe the return value or post-call state, but the parameter schema already provides helpful context like using get_team_roster for agent_id.

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 100%, and the input schema already documents all four parameters in detail, including the regenerate_activities default and its Key Result requirement. The tool description mostly restates the regenerate_activities behavior rather than adding new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 action — 'Regenerate an agent's JD using fresh company context' — and enumerates what it updates: mission, expertise, guardrails, success metrics, and optionally activity plans. It clearly focuses on JD recalibration, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with similar siblings like update_agent or update_agent_skill.

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 Routing section gives explicit trigger conditions: company/situation changed, agent feels stale, or user says recalibrate/refresh/re-interview, including during a Linnet Activity Health Audit. It lacks an explicit 'do not use when...' or alternative-tool routing, but the when-to-use guidance is concrete and actionable.

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