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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description adds one genuinely useful fact: 'Its other duties stay.' It does not explain what makes the operation destructive — whether the agent is restarted, whether in-flight work or conversation state is lost, or whether repeating the call is safe. For a destructive mutation that is the most important thing to disclose.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource first and mode definitions appended; every clause carries information and nothing is redundant. The heavy parenthetical nesting makes it slightly harder to parse quickly, but no wording 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?

For a three-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the mode semantics are well covered but the consequences are not: no statement of what the agent does immediately after the change, no mention of returned values, and no clarity on the `every` parameter's applicability. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 33% (only agent_id is described), so the description carries the burden and largely meets it: it explains what each of the four `kind` values actually means behaviorally, which the bare enum does not. It only implies the role of `every` (attached to the pulse gloss) and says nothing about whether `every` is required or ignored for reactive/daynight/self.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Changes an agent's temper') and then enumerates the four modes with short glosses, so an agent can distinguish reactive/pulse/daynight/self without opening the enum. It does not explicitly distinguish this from set_model or boot_agent, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 mode glosses imply the choice ('pulse' for waking every N minutes, 'self' for self-directed wake-ups), which is implied when-to-use guidance at the value level. However there is no statement about when to call this versus set_model/boot_agent, no prerequisites, and no warning about switching away from the current mode.

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