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

Goes well beyond the annotations by describing downstream effects: matches return to inbox, recurring checks stop, matches move back to in_takedown, checks re-arm, and reopening fails under stated conditions. This adds substantial operational context to the destructive/open-world annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries real behavioral information. The dense semicolon-separated prose could be more scannable, but there is no filler.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers status semantics, side effects, failure cases, and the relevant alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call it 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 the baseline is already high, but the description still adds meaning by explaining the consequences of each status beyond the enum's one-line summary. It does not discuss takedown_id, though the schema already says where to obtain it.

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 ('Change a takedown's status') and then enumerates every status value. It explicitly distinguishes itself from start_takedown, so an agent can separate the two without opening schemas.

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?

Explains what each status does and when each applies, including that succeeded/unsuccessful/dropped close an attempt while open reopens the latest closed one. It also names start_takedown as the alternative for a fresh attempt, giving a clear selection rule.

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