Revoking account closure

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint: true), the description adds key behavioral details: immediate reactivation, data retention, and required permission (manage_enterprise). This helps the agent understand the consequences and authorization needed, though it could mention if the action is reversible or has side effects.

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 very concise: three sentences covering purpose, effect, and permission. No redundant information, front-loaded with the main action.

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 destructive nature and three parameters, the description covers the most critical aspects: what happens (reactivation, data retention) and permissions. It does not explain that it reverses a closure request, but the presence of an output schema and annotations fills some gaps. Overall, fairly complete for a tool of this 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema already provides (confirm, dry_run, body). The schema descriptions are sufficient, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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 clearly states the tool purpose: revoking account closure, resulting in immediate reactivation and data retention. It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (enterprise closure), distinguishing it from sibling tools like action1_request_enterprise_closure.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a prior closure request), when not to use it, or how it relates to other enterprise management siblings. The context of reversing a closure is implied but not explicit.

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