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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the auth/permission requirement (platform staff, manage) and the important side-effect detail that revoked sessions and API keys stay revoked while the person must re-authenticate and mint new keys. It does not describe the response or whether the operation is reversible/idempotent.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the access constraint, then the effect, then the behavioral caveat. No filler and nothing repeated from structured 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?

For a one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: who may call it, what permission is needed, and the state that persists after reactivation. It stops short of describing the returned representation, which is the only notable gap.

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% and the sole accountId parameter is documented nowhere, so the description must compensate — and it does not mention the parameter at all. It is mitigated by there being only one, self-evidently named identifier, so a baseline 3 is fair.

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 (reactivate) and resource (account) and clarifies the effect with 'Allow the account to sign in again.' It implicitly contrasts with the sibling platform_accounts_suspend, but never names it, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 states the precondition clearly ('Platform staff only (account session). Requires manage.'), which tells the agent who may call it, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against platform_accounts_suspend / platform_accounts_get. Usage is implied by the reactivation semantics rather than stated.

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