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

The description discloses the conditional state transition ('ACTIVE' vs 'PENDING with upgrade required'), which goes well beyond the annotations that only indicate a non-read, non-destructive operation. It explains what happens under different plan conditions, giving agents realistic expectations about side effects and required follow-up actions. This is valuable behavioral context not available anywhere else.

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 a single well-organized sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then explains the conditional outcome. Every clause adds essential information, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is optimally concise for the complexity of the behavior.

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?

The description fully explains the tool's behavior for a simple one-parameter operation. It covers both possible outcomes and their implications. The presence of an output schema means return values do not need to be described, and annotations handle the basic mutability/safety context. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide when to call this tool and what to expect.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'keywordId' with its type and description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed because the schema is complete. The baseline of 3 applies here.

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 uses a specific verb ('Re-activate') and identifies the exact resource ('a disabled keyword'), making the action unambiguous. It also explains the state outcome (ACTIVE or PENDING), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like disable_keyword, add_keywords, or edit_keyword. The purpose is immediately clear without needing to inspect the 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?

The description clearly states when to use the tool: when re-activating a disabled keyword. It provides the context that the result depends on plan fit, so an agent can predict the outcome. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for active keywords), though this is strongly implied.

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