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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the allowed enum values, but does not explain consequences of pausing, archiving, or reactivating an agent, nor whether transitions are reversible or require special permissions.

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 description is one concise sentence that front-loads the core action and includes the allowed values. It earns its place, though it could add more context without becoming verbose.

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 simple two-parameter status setter, the description is minimally viable: it names the resource, the action, and the valid inputs. However, it lacks usage guidance, side-effect disclosure, and clarification of what each status transition implies, so it is not fully complete.

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 for parameter meaning. It restates the status enum values, which duplicates the schema, but offers no explanation of the 'id' parameter or the practical meaning of each status value.

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?

The description clearly states the resource ('agent') and the operation ('Change agent status'), listing the four allowed status values. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_agent or create_agent by specifying exactly the action being performed.

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?

The description implies this tool is used when transitioning an agent among ACTIVE, PAUSED, ARCHIVED, and DRAFT, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as update_agent or pause_channel. No exclusions or prerequisite conditions are given.

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