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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, which sets a lower bar, but the description adds nothing behavioral. It does not say whether omitted fields are left unchanged or reset, whether the update fails if the tenant does not exist, or which changes are hard to reverse – meaningful gaps for a tool flagged destructive.

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 short sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and resource before the field list. Nothing in it is redundant or padded.

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?

Output schema and rich annotations are present, so return values and safety profile are covered elsewhere. However, for a destructive, partially-specified mutation the description omits patch semantics (are unspecified fields preserved?) and any failure conditions, leaving a real gap for correct invocation.

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 100%, and the schema itself explains null-clearing semantics, the stream_policy enum meaning, and that tenant accepts an external id or Groundmail id. The description only restates the field names, adding no semantics beyond the structured data, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (Change) and resource (tenant) and enumerates the mutable fields, so an agent knows exactly which attributes this tool touches. It does not name a sibling it is not, but the field list plus the name separates it adequately from create_tenant, get_tenant, and pause_tenant.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives – notably pause_tenant/resume_tenant for disabling sending, or create_tenant for new tenants. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and field list, with no exclusions or prerequisites given.

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