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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true, but the description explains the non-obvious sense in which it is destructive: disabling refuses every instance's credentials without revoking them, and the state persists until re-activated. 'The slug never changes' further constrains the mutation. This is exactly the context annotations cannot convey.

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, front-loaded with the operations, then the credential nuance, then the immutability constraint. No filler and nothing buried.

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-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what changes and the key side effect. It does not mention failure modes (e.g., duplicate display name) or permission requirements, though the name-uniqueness rule is already in the schema.

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 the schema already documents name, status, and agent_slug, making the baseline 3. The description adds one real semantic point beyond the schema: the slug is immutable, so agent_slug is purely an identifier rather than something rename touches.

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 and resource: rename an agent or switch it between active and disabled. This sharply narrows what the generically named update_agent does, distinguishing it from siblings like rename_team, archive_agent, restore_agent, and update_agent_instance.

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 define the usage context clearly, so an agent knows exactly which calls this tool covers. It does not name alternatives (e.g., archive_agent for removal) or state when-not to use it, leaving a small inference gap.

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