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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains the effect of disabling: credentials are refused but not revoked until reactivation. That is real context an agent cannot derive from readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=true, and it usefully signals the operation is reversible. It stops short of noting that renaming does not retroactively affect already-made requests (that detail lives only in the schema).

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the one non-obvious behavioral consequence. No filler and nothing repeated verbatim from the schema.

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 with full schema coverage and annotations declaring idempotency and destructiveness, the description covers what the tool does and the key side effect of disabling. Only minor gaps remain, such as what happens on a name collision, which the schema handles.

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 both optional parameters (name, status) are already fully documented with omit-to-keep semantics. The description mirrors 'rename' and 'active/disabled' without adding syntax or edge-case meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb pair and resource scope: it renames one instance of an agent or toggles its active/disabled status. An agent can distinguish this from agent-level operations, though it never names its closest siblings (update_agent, create_agent_instance, revoke_agent_credential) to make the boundary explicit.

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 two use cases (rename, toggle status) are stated directly, so the agent can infer when to call it. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over revoke_agent_credential or update_agent, and no exclusions — the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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