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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the auth/session requirement, the permission scope, the blast radius (every workspace), the exact effect of the off state, its timing ('effective before the next dial'), and that the action is audited. It omits reversibility details beyond the toggle and does not describe the response, but the behavioral profile is unusually rich.

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?

Five short clauses, all front-loaded: permission gate, permission name, action, off-state consequence, audit note. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 boolean platform toggle with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers permissions, scope, state semantics, timing, and audit trail. An agent has everything needed to decide eligibility and predict the effect.

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 boolean is already documented, but the description goes further by explaining the consequence of the false value ('live-mode SAGOT lines call only their verified numbers again'), which the schema does not say. This adds real semantic value beyond the structured field.

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: flipping live calling from SAGOT numbers on or off, scoped to every workspace. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling platform_settings_get, though it never names the sibling explicitly and the generic tool name ('platform_settings_update') implies more settings than the one covered.

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 the required preconditions explicitly (platform staff only, account session, manage permission), which tells the agent who may call it. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but for a single-purpose toggle the context is sufficient.

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