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

Beyond the annotations (destructive/non-idempotent), it discloses that the transaction re-verifies permission/consent/join batch and that no contact details are exposed in the response, plus the preview-hash confirmation protocol. This is meaningful behavioral context the annotations cannot convey.

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 paragraph that front-loads the permission requirement, then actions, then the preview protocol. Efficient for the amount of information, with no obviously wasted clause.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and six undocumented parameters, the description supplies permissions, self-approval restriction, workflow, and non-disclosure of contact info. It could say more about the two identifier parameters, 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 burden. It adds meaning for note, preview, previewHash and action (via the confirmation flow), but leaves activityRef and requestId as unexplained identifiers, so compensation is only partial.

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 exact actions (approve/reject/revoke) and the resource (activity cloud contact authorization), stating clearly that approval opens contact rights for specified members and sends notification. This easily separates it from request_activity_cloud_contacts and list_activity_cloud_contact_requests, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 states the precondition (requires contact-management permission), an exclusion (cannot self-approve), and a full workflow (default preview, then re-submit with same params + previewHash and preview=false, re-confirm on change). Alternatives are not named, but the when/how is explicit.

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