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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real behavioral context: it consumes runs, runs for a fixed 48-hour window, pauses plugin updates, and alerts on every unexpected change. It stops short of stating permissions/auth needs, but the effects of the mutation are well disclosed.

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 trigger condition is front-loaded and the effects follow logically, with the run-consumption note near the end. It is somewhat dense and the parenthetical about the Relvato tick box is a UI detail that borders on extraneous, but overall it is informative rather than padded.

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 state-changing tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the duration, the effects, and the resource cost, plus a pointer to get_quarantine for run counts and the dashboard for stopping. Auth/permission requirements and exact return behavior are unstated, leaving a minor gap.

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?

There is only one parameter (siteId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax or format meaning for siteId, so the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas applies.

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 ('Start quarantine mode') and enumerates concrete effects: hourly security monitors for 48 hours, paused plugin updates, and alerting on unexpected changes. It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing get_quarantine for run counting and pointing to the dashboard for early stops.

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?

Gives a clear triggering context ('After a hack or a cleanup (WordPress, paid plans)') and notes the WordPress/Relvato 1.77.0+ prerequisite. It does not explicitly contrast when to use this versus extend_quarantine or other lifecycle tools, so the guidance is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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