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

Annotations only say it is non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the required `user` scope, that the action is audit-logged, that today's spend still counts against the existing bucket, and what happens in the idempotent and not-found cases. It also names the return fields, which annotations cannot convey.

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 action and its trigger are front-loaded, and every clause carries operational value (prerequisite, auth constraint, edge cases, return shape). It is dense with semicolons and parentheses, which makes it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be, but nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is needed: the trigger condition, the prerequisite tool call, the credential constraint, scope, audit logging, idempotent behavior, and the return shape. No obvious gap remains for an agent to call 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% and the single `token_id` property already documents its UUID pattern and how to obtain it (merjax_list_tokens, GET /api/v2/user/tokens). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Resume one of your personal access tokens') and even names the exact condition that put the token in that state (daily bucket spent, or the tripwire). An agent can immediately separate this from siblings like merjax_revoke_token, merjax_rotate_token, or merjax_set_token_bucket without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite and alternative: raise the bucket first with merjax_set_token_bucket if it is spent. It also states the hard constraint that a suspended token cannot call this itself and another credential must be used, plus the no-op case ('a token that is not suspended is unchanged') and the authorization boundary ('another person's token is not found').

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