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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait (activation is not a side effect of create/edit), but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, idempotency, or the meaning of dry_run defaulting to true.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded and free of filler, but the brevity comes from omission rather than discipline. It is underspecified for a five-parameter mutation tool rather than efficiently concise.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but the input side is a large gap: five undocumented parameters, no annotations, and a non-obvious dry_run default. The description does not give the agent enough to call this 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 description coverage is 0% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and does not — rule_ids, active, dry_run, explicit_activate and company_name are all unexplained. "Must be explicit" only faintly gestures at the explicit_activate flag without clarifying its relationship to active.

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?

"Separate activation control" mostly restates the name (set_..._activation) rather than stating a specific verb+resource. It never says what activating a bank transaction booking rule actually does, and it doesn't distinguish itself from nearby siblings like explicit_enable_bank_rule_auto_booking or set_ai_booking_rule_auto_booking.

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?

"Never called by create/edit; must be explicit" is a genuine usage signal: it tells the agent that create/update tools do not toggle activation and an explicit call is required. However, it gives no guidance on when to set active=true vs false, or when to prefer the sibling explicit_enable/auto-booking tools.

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