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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds material context beyond them: that this mutates the live receptionist rather than a draft ("REAL ACTION, not a preview"), that a specific confirmation protocol is required, and that PRO+ entitlement is needed. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads the identity and the pause-alternative before the operational cautions, which is the right order. Slightly marred by restating the confirmation requirement twice ("show the exact change... wait for explicit approval" then "Right before calling, show the user the exact change and get their explicit confirmation") — defensible emphasis for a destructive op, but redundant.

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 3-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: entitlement check, the lookup call to run first, the human-approval gate, and the irreversible live-action warning. Nothing consequential is left to inference.

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 only 33% — only `confirmed` is documented in the schema, and the description's gating language reinforces its semantics well. However, `agentId` is required yet never explained in either place, and `scenarioId` is only named, not characterized. Partial compensation, not full.

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?

"Delete one Call Scenario by scenarioId" gives an unambiguous verb, resource, and lookup key, and immediately distinguishes itself from the two relevant siblings (call_scenarios_update for pausing, listCallScenarios for enumeration). An agent can place this tool in the family without reading any 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?

Names the alternative explicitly (use call_scenarios_update with isEnabled=false to pause instead), states the prerequisite sequence (listCallScenarios first, show change, wait for approval, then set confirmed=true), and adds the plan-tier gate. When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and prerequisites are all present.

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