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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, closed-world). The description goes well beyond them by disclosing the mandatory confirmation-token flow, the review-before-commit requirement, and the exact authorization prerequisites — precisely the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a mutating tool.

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?

Three tight sentences: the action first, then the confirmation prerequisite, then the permissions. Every clause carries operative information; there is no filler or restatement of schema fields.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description fully covers the preconditions, authorization, and conversational workflow for a destructive-adjacent state transition, so an agent can call it correctly without further context.

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 only 33% (requestId is the sole documented property), so the description must compensate — and it does for confirmationToken by explaining where the token comes from (preview_operation) and when it is valid. organizationId is left unexplained, but its meaning is self-evident from the tool name. Minor residual gap.

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 plus the state transition: 'Bring an archived organization back to active.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from archive_organization and restore_project, and the agent knows exactly what the call accomplishes.

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 workflow (call preview_operation with this tool name and these arguments, show the plan to the user, call only after explicit approval) plus the required permission (organization:manage) and the owner role. Nothing about when/when-not to use it is left to inference.

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