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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further: it explains the entry moves from archived_activities back to the live plan with only archive markers removed, that split pieces are retired in the same call, and that it refuses if an activity with that name is already live so nothing is overwritten. It also discloses approval-tier behavior, which is valuable beyond the 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 longer than minimal but every section earns its place: behavior, use cases, routing, refusal behavior, and approval note. It is front-loaded with the core inverse relationship before the more verbose routing and approval guidance, though some redundancy exists in repeating the restore trigger phrases.

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 there is no output schema and the tool has complex state-changing behavior, the description covers everything needed for a correct call: exact trigger semantics, required naming, split-piece handling, the no-overwrite guarantee, and approval expectations. Nothing important is left unspecified.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters including agent_id/agent_name alternatives and remove_pieces behavior. The description adds contextual meaning around 'exact retired name' and split-piece handling, but it mostly reinforces rather than supplements the schema.

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: 'Bring ONE retired activity back onto an agent's plan.' It also explicitly frames itself as the inverse of remove_agent_activity and split_agent_activity, which distinguishes it from those siblings immediately.

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 trigger phrases ('bring back, un-retire or restore an activity, or to undo a remove or a split'), a clear Routing section, and explicitly names add_agent_activity as the alternative when the operator wants something new. No inference is required.

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