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

Annotations already declare the write/non-destructive/non-idempotent profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: 'full core/overlays replace the stored object' discloses replacement (not merge) semantics, and 'Restores are versioned' explains that reverting is version-tracked. Missing auth/permission requirements keep it from a 5.

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 dense sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose and packs identity resolution plus replacement/versioning semantics without filler. The semicolon-clause structure is a little cramped but every clause carries information.

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 mutation tool with nested core/overlays and low schema coverage, the description covers identity resolution and replace/restore behavior but omits the meaning of 'active', 'readableSummary', and the restore-version flow. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but input-side gaps remain.

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 20% (only workspaceId and linkedinAccountId documented), so the description must compensate. It usefully clarifies the identity-resolution trio and the replace semantics of core/overlays, but leaves 'active', 'readableSummary', and 'restoreVoiceVersionId' unexplained, so compensation is partial and the 3 baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Edit or restore one identity voice profile language'), so the agent knows it mutates and can restore a voice profile. However it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling campaignstack_refresh_identity_voice, which an agent could otherwise confuse with the restore path.

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 implicit when-to-use guidance by explaining how to target the identity (provide identityId, linkedinAccountId, googleAccountId, or none when the workspace has only one LinkedIn account). It stops short of naming alternatives or stating exclusions relative to refresh_identity_voice or get_identities.

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