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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: published definitions and enrolled people stay pinned to reviewed versions, and expectedRevision implies optimistic-concurrency revisions, which hints at mutability risk. It does not describe error behavior when expectedRevision is stale.

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 set, then the invariants, then the guide pointer — every sentence earns its place. The action/parameter listing is slightly dense and telegraphic, but no waste.

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 two-parameter, action-dispatched mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers operations, invariants, and a guide resource pointer. Return values and error semantics are unaddressed, which is a minor gap given no output schema is declared.

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 coverage is only 50% and the payload object is open-ended, so the description carries real weight by mapping each action enum value to the parameters it needs (stable flowId, expectedRevision, definition; prepareAudience's flowId/expectedRevision). That goes beyond the schema's generic 'Action parameters' note, though revision/id format is still unspecified.

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?

The description names the concrete operations (save draft, prepareAudience, pause, cancel) against the sequence resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from activation/enrollment siblings with 'This tool cannot activate or enroll anyone.' An agent can separate it from activate_email_sequence and inspect_email_sequence 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?

It clearly scopes when to use the tool (editing drafts/audience prep/pausing/cancelling) and rules out activation and enrollment, and it routes to a workflow guide resource. It stops short of naming alternatives like edit_email_campaign for comparison.

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