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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is lighter. It adds real value by describing the observable consequence of activation (reappears in active lists, regains access) and the underlying GraphQL mutation, though it says nothing about permissions required or behavior when the user is already active.

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 compact sentences with the operation class front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 mutation with annotations covering the safety and idempotency profile and no output schema, the description supplies the effect and mutation name needed to call it confidently. Only auth/permission expectations and already-active handling are unstated.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents user_id as the employee id. The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 (re-activate) and resource (deactivated employee), plus the concrete effect (appears in active lists, can use kiwiHR again). The 'WRITE:' prefix and GraphQL mutation name make it immediately distinguishable from read siblings like kiwihr_get_user and from kiwihr_deactivate_user.

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 phrase 're-activate a deactivated employee' establishes the precondition clearly, implying this is the inverse of kiwihr_deactivate_user. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or stating what to do if the user is already active, so it falls just below the explicit when/when-not bar.

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