Update a loss reason

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real value: archiving's non-destructive effect on existing outcomes, the required idempotency key with retry semantics, required scopes, and data sensitivity. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation flags.

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 functional sentence is front-loaded ahead of the operational metadata block, and each line earns its place. The scopes/sensitivity lines are dense but relevant to correct invocation.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining essentials: mutation semantics, idempotency requirement, auth scopes, and workspace override. Only the body field mapping is left implicit.

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 60%, and the description implicitly maps its verbs to the body fields (label=rename, displayOrder=reorder, active=archive) without naming them, and restates the workspaceId/workspaceSlug/idempotencyKey semantics already documented in the schema. Adequate but adds little beyond the schema.

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 specific verbs (rename, reorder, archive) against a specific resource (an outcome reason), and clarifies the archive semantics. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like luca_bookings_outcome_reasons_create or _list without opening a schema.

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 explains what archiving does (hides from picker, leaves recorded outcomes alone), which implies when to use it, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives. Usage must be inferred from the operation list.

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