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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a required consent, several non-effects, and a follow-up operation, which is useful. However, it does not clarify whether the activation is reversible, how it affects existing activated capabilities, what happens on repeated calls, or what the response looks like.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. The subsequent sentences add relevant non-effects and a follow-up step without padding. The only slight inefficiency is that the exclusions list could be more directly tied to sibling alternatives, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, plus a nested activation object with two required fields, the description should provide substantially more guidance. It explains intent and prerequisites but omits essential details about the idempotencyKey, the format and meaning of capabilities, and any expected result. This is not complete enough for a tool with this structural complexity.

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 compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions the consent requirement, which maps to the nested consent field, but it never explains the idempotencyKey semantics or what values the capabilities array should contain. This leaves half the required parameters effectively undocumented.

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 states a specific action—explicitly opting in under a self-service policy—and names the resource (capabilities). It also distinguishes itself from nearby operations by enumerating what it does not do: enroll credits, issue funds, broaden existing keys, or override administrator revocation. This makes the tool's purpose concrete and separates it from siblings like enroll_credits, issue_budget, and set_agent_capability.

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 implies usage context: use this when opting in under the operator's self-service policy, and only with commons-upgrade/1 consent. It also implies a follow-up action (creating a matching scoped key afterward). However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name a specific sibling to prefer for other scenarios.

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