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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds useful context by saying the work is 'queued' (asynchronous), which the annotations do not convey. However it omits what happens to the existing voice profile, whether jobs can be tracked, or rate/scope limits.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope constraint ('all LinkedIn accounts linked to an identity visible in the workspace') follows the action directly.

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?

The presence of an output schema and annotations relieves the description of return-value and safety duties, but for a non-idempotent mutation with four parameters at 25% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent guessing about parameter roles and follow-up verification.

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 25% — only workspaceId is documented — yet the description names no parameter at all. It implies the identity is the target ('linked to an identity') but does not clarify how identityId, linkedinAccountId, or googleAccountId interact, nor whether linkedinAccountId narrows the 'all accounts' scope.

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: 'Queue voice re-extraction' for LinkedIn accounts tied to an identity. It is clearly distinguishable from generic siblings like refresh_leads or refresh_companies, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest relative (refresh_workspace_playbook or get_identities).

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. The agent must infer that this is the tool for re-deriving an identity's writing voice, and there is no mention of alternatives or follow-up tools (e.g. a refresh-status check).

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