audience.hf.activation_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Preview' conveys a non-mutating, read-only operation and the apply flag's 'must be false' reinforces that, but there is no disclosure of auth requirements, rate limits, or what the returned plan contains. Minimal but non-contradictory.

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 compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. The only waste is the 'Human-friendly:' tag, which carries no operational meaning.

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?

Five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description never explains what an activation plan looks like, what targets resolve to, or what the preview returns. For a preview tool whose whole value is the returned plan, this leaves an important gap.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters (apply, targets, account_id, direct_client_login). The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 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 clear verb+resource: 'preview Direct activation plan for an Audience segment.' It also distinguishes itself from the apply sibling ('pro-only apply tool is separate'), which helps an agent tell it apart. The 'Human-friendly:' prefix is filler but doesn't obscure the purpose.

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 signals this is the preview/non-mutating counterpart to a separate apply tool, implying 'use this to preview, use apply to commit.' However it never names the alternative tool (audience.hf.apply_activation_plan) explicitly nor states the condition for choosing one over the other, leaving the routing partly to inference.

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