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

Annotations declare this a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: core/overlays are a full replacement rather than a merge, and restores are versioned. It still doesn't cover permission requirements, how omitted optional fields behave under replacement, or reversibility of an edit.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the action and resource, then target identifiers, then replacement/versioning semantics. No filler sentences.

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 10-parameter nested-object mutation with an output schema present, the description covers the core mechanics (identity targeting, full replacement, versioned restore) but omits the meaning of 'active' and 'readableSummary' and the exact restore flow from restoreVoiceVersionId to a version. Adequate but not complete.

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 10% across 10 parameters (only workspaceId is documented in the schema), so the description must carry the load. It clarifies the identifier alternatives, that core/overlays replace wholesale, and implies the version id for restores, but leaves 'active' and 'readableSummary' entirely unexplained and says nothing about the required 'language' format beyond the field name.

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?

States a specific verb pair (edit/restore) and resource (identity voice profile language), and scopes it to one language at a time, which distinguishes it from the bulk refresh sibling. It does not directly name campaignstack_refresh_identity_voice or campaignstack_get_identities, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Gives concrete invocation guidance about which identifier to supply (identityId, linkedinAccountId, or googleAccountId) and notes restores are versioned, which implies restoreVoiceVersionId usage. However, it never says when to choose this tool over campaignstack_refresh_identity_voice or campaignstack_get_identities, and no when-not conditions are given.

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