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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely structured. The description adds the deactivation possibility and confirmation requirement, but does not explain what deactivation changes or whether updates are reversible.

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 two short sentences and front-loads the action and prerequisite. There is no boilerplate or unnecessary detail.

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 the rich structured context (full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema), the description is adequate for invocation: it names the action, deactivation capability, and confirmation requirement. It could be stronger on alternatives and destructive effects, but those are partly covered by the schema and annotations.

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 schema documents `body` (Id, Active, other supported fields) and `confirmed`. The description only repeats the confirmed=true requirement and adds no field or format semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 verb-resource pair: updates or deactivates a Virtual Assistant / VA profile. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as hgr_add_virtual_assistant or hgr_get_virtual_assistants, so it is clear but stops short of strong sibling routing.

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 implies use when updating or deactivating a VA and states the confirmed=true prerequisite, but gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative. The confirmation requirement is useful but is also present in the schema.

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