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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with both. It adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: the exact persisted state (is_active=false) and the observable consequence that inbound /email/trigger/ calls with this trigger_key return 404 while inactive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, followed by the operational consequence. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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 single-parameter toggle with no output schema, the description covers the action, the resulting state, the runtime side effect (404), and the alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Only one parameter, documented at 100% schema coverage with type, format (uuid) and a description. The prose adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for full coverage applies.

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 (Deactivate) and resource (email trigger), plus the concrete state change (is_active=false). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling meisa_activate_trigger and from meisa_delete_trigger, which permanently removes rather than toggles.

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 names the alternative path explicitly ('Ergonomic shortcut for toggling is_active via meisa_update_trigger'), giving the agent a clear reason to prefer this tool for that specific operation. It stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g., bulk updates or combined field edits).

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