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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: entitlement tier, dual read/write consent, the exact-intent confirmation requirement, and the optimistic-concurrency rule of re-reading state before mutating. It stops short of describing what disabling destroys or the failure semantics of a stale revision.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and sized at three sentences with no filler. The revision requirement is stated twice ('using its current revision' then again at the end), which is mild redundancy rather than bloat.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the mutation's prerequisites and concurrency model. Given 0% parameter coverage it could still clarify the project_id/target_id relationship and confirmation_token vs payload.confirmed, but nothing critical is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains idempotency_key ('stable idempotency key'), expected_version ('use its current revision', i.e. optimistic concurrency), and confirmation ('exact-intent confirmation'), but leaves project_id and target_id unexplained.

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 ('Disable an existing monthly reporting enrollment'), and the disable/enroll pairing makes it self-evidently distinct from its counterpart founder_ops.enroll. An agent knows exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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 preconditions (Startup plan or higher, both read and write consent, stable idempotency key, exact-intent confirmation) that gate correct invocation. It does not name the enable counterpart or state when *not* to use it, so it stops short of full when/alternatives guidance.

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