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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnly=false), idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: disabling refuses the instance's credentials until reactivation and does so without revoking them. It doesn't cover permission requirements or timing 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operations, zero filler. The credential-behavior detail is placed after the core action so an agent gets the gist immediately.

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 3-param, single-required, no-output-schema mutation tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, the description covers the essential behavioral twist (credentials refused, not revoked). Minor gaps: no return-value note and no permission prerequisites.

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 100%, so name, status, and instance_id are fully documented in the schema (including that already-made requests keep their name and that omitted fields are left unchanged). The description adds no syntax or value details beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Rename one instance of an agent or switch it between active and disabled') and scopes it to a single instance, which cleanly distinguishes it from the agent-level sibling update_agent. An agent can tell what this does 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?

The two supported operations (rename, toggle status) are named, which implies usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as update_agent, rename_team, or create_agent_instance. No preconditions or exclusions are given.

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