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

The description explicitly states that status 2 deletes users and status 6 deletes conversations, which is destructive behavior. This directly contradicts the annotation 'destructiveHint: false'. The description is transparent about the side effects, but the annotation says otherwise, creating a serious inconsistency.

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?

The description is two concise sentences. The first identifies the action and endpoint, the second lists the status meanings. Every sentence earns its place with zero fluff.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and parameters are fully documented in the schema, the description sufficiently covers the key behavioral context of status codes and their side effects. The only gap is the unresolved contradiction with annotations, but the description itself is complete for the tool's core use.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds critical semantic value by explaining what each numeric status means (e.g., 2 deletes users, 3 marks test users). This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Activation action code such as 2, 3, 6, or 7', enriching parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's function: changing messenger user status via POST /v1/user/change-status/{status}. It enumerates specific status codes (2, 3, 6, 7) with their effects, which uniquely identifies the tool among siblings like set-user-attribute or list-messenger-users.

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool and what each status does, enabling the agent to decide between destructive and non-destructive status changes. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when this tool should not be used, which would warrant a 5.

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