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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations by revealing that the identity and up to 500 identities sharing its devices are re-scored, that it stops counting against other identities, and that it returns true only if the identity was found. This gives the agent a clear picture of the blast radius and outcome.

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 front-loaded with the primary action and consequence, and the critical user-confirmation warning is placed separately. It is somewhat long, but every clause contributes necessary behavioral or side-effect information.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the meaning, the side effects, the confirmation requirement, and the return contract. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely and correctly is missing.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds real semantic value by explaining what 'disregarded' means and what the boolean flag implies operationally, which is more than the schema's bare 'true to disregard, false to regard again'.

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 names a specific verb ('Mark an identity as disregarded'), defines the target concept precisely ('operator, tester, or other account that is not a real user'), and states the concrete effects. This makes its purpose clear and distinguishes it from read tools like get_identity or list_identities.

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?

It gives clear context on what the tool is for and includes an explicit user-confirmation prerequisite before the operation. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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