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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two real behaviors — the confirm gate and the plan prerequisite for enabling — but says nothing about what disabling does to in-flight workflow runs, whether it is reversible, or who may perform it beyond the plan check.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisite immediately following. Nothing needs to be trimmed.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description is the sole behavioral source, and for a state-changing tool with a plan gate it leaves gaps: no mention of the preview return on confirm=false, no note on disable side effects, and no permissions context. Adequate to select the tool, not complete enough to invoke it confidently.

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 33% (only 'confirm' is documented), so the description must compensate. 'On or off' maps to 'enabled' and 'confirm-gated' reinforces 'confirm', but 'workflowId' is only implied by 'one of the coach's workflows' and no format or identifier source is given.

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+resource pair ('turn one of the coach's workflows on or off'), which clearly separates it from create_workflow, list_workflows, and review_workflow_draft. It doesn't name those siblings explicitly, but the enable/disable scope is unambiguous.

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?

The description gives concrete context: the operation is confirm-gated and enabling requires Coach Pro or a gym plan. That tells the agent when the call will fail. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it's clear context without exclusions.

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