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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and does not explain effects like whether omitted parameters are left unchanged, any permission requirements, reversibility, or validation rules. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds relevant information 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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description lacks essential guidance on how the parameters interact (e.g., whether partial updates are allowed, min/max duration constraints) and what the result of the update looks like. This makes it insufficient for an AI to invoke correctly in many scenarios.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level summary (toggle, reserves, durations) that maps to schema fields but provides no additional format or relationship details beyond what the schema already gives.

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 action ('Update auto-selling configuration for a pool') and specifies the key sub-actions ('Toggle energy/bandwidth selling, set reserves, duration constraints'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_auto_selling_config, which reads configuration.

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?

It provides a clear usage context ('Pass the configId from get_auto_selling_config'), indicating the tool modifies an existing configuration. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the 'get' sibling or state when not to use it, so slightly below full marks.

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