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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds two things annotations cannot express: an authorization requirement (SuperAdmin only) and a confirmation requirement (confirm:true). It does not explain the consequence of setting false (listing hidden from buyers) nor why a boolean setter is annotated as non-idempotent.

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, front-loaded fragments with zero filler; the state semantics come first, then the auth gate, then the confirmation requirement.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the state being changed, the caller's authority, and the confirm flag, but omits the effect of hiding a listing and the meaning of the two identifier parameters that no other field explains.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies listingActive (true=Live, false=Hidden) and confirm, but says nothing about farmId or vendorFarmId and their relationship, leaving half the parameters undocumented everywhere.

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+resource ("Set a vendor listingActive") and explains the value semantics (Live/Hidden), so the agent immediately knows this flips a listing's visibility state. It is clearly distinct from the nearest sibling, activate_rentahatch_booking, which concerns bookings rather than listing visibility.

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?

"SuperAdmin only. confirm:true required." tells the agent the precondition and the confirmation gate, which is genuinely useful, but it never says when to reach for this tool versus activate_rentahatch_booking or update_rentahatch_payout_status. Usage is implied by the verb, not stated.

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