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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the mode switch itself. It doesn't say whether the change is persistent, whether it disrupts active connections, or whether it requires re-authentication. For a mutation tool, this is thin.

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?

One focused sentence that front-loads the core action and both mode/port pairs without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description lacks operational context such as persistence, connection impact, and required proxy state. It is minimally adequate but leaves an agent guessing about side effects.

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 both parameters fully. The description's mention of the two modes and ports loosely maps to interval_minutes, but adds no syntax beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (switch between rotation modes) and the resource (IP rotation), with the two modes and their ports named. It doesn't differentiate from the 12 siblings, but the operation is unique enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

No guidance on when to rotate-every-request vs sticky, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the proxy must not be in use or that the change takes effect immediately). The agent must infer usage purely from the mode names.

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