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

Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, and not-read-only, so the safety bar is low; the description still adds real behavior: disabling refuses all instance credentials without revoking them, is reversible once active again, and leaves the slug immutable. It does not mention permission requirements or rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with the primary action front-loaded, followed by the side effect and the invariant. No filler, no restatement of the title, nothing to cut.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what changes, the immediate credential consequence, and reversibility. Return shape and name-collision behavior are left to the schema, which is acceptable, though the 'unique among live agents' constraint is never echoed in prose.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond it by stating the slug is invariant under rename, clarifying that the effect of the name/status params is scoped and that agent_slug remains the stable identifier.

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 two specific operations (rename, switch status) on a specific resource (agent), and adds a clarifying boundary that distinguishes it from revoke_agent_credential ('without revoking them') and from slug-based identity ('the slug never changes'). An agent can tell what this tool is for without opening the 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?

Usage is implied by the action set rather than stated: use it to rename or toggle active/disabled. It never names alternatives such as archive_agent (permanent removal) or restore_agent, so an agent must infer when this is preferred over sibling mutations.

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