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

Annotations tell the agent this is a non-destructive, non-read-only mutation. The description adds virtually nothing beyond confirming it creates/resumes a workspace. With annotations covering only the safety profile, the description should disclose whether previous workspace state is overwritten, whether it requires the audit artifact, etc.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler, front-loaded around the create/resume verb. It is short enough that there's no wasted prose, though the brevity comes at the cost of detail.

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 mutation tool with 6 params, no output schema, and only 50% schema coverage, the one-line description is far too thin. It neither explains return values nor ties the auditArtifactId/domain parameters to the workflow it references.

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 50%, so half the parameters are documented inline (goal, retagTiming, idempotencyKey). The description mentions none of them, however, leaving the undocumented parameters (domain, outputFormat, auditArtifactId) and their interactions unclarified.

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?

Names a specific action ('Create or resume ... workspace') and references 'verified-account activation', but 'sulvo_revenue_onboarding' is jargon that doesn't clearly map to the sibling set. An agent scanning siblings like get_sulvo_revenue_onboarding_status or set_sulvo_onboarding_journey can't easily tell how this 'start' workflow differs from those.

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 mentions sequencing ('after the public audit and signup steps') but doesn't give explicit when-to-use guidance or point to alternatives. It never names siblings like start_sulvo_signup or get_sulvo_revenue_onboarding_status, so an agent has no routing signal.

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