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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses important behaviors: 'soft-delete' and the blocker for deactivation. It doesn't specify return values, permission needs, or error handling, but the disclosed constraints are significant.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences deliver the purpose, actions, and a critical constraint without any filler. Each sentence earns its place.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main actions and a key business rule but leaves out expected results like whether the update returns the updated listing and how errors from the open-hires blocker are presented. This leaves gaps for an agent to handle edge cases.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description's action explanation adds a small amount of context but largely mirrors the schema's own 'for update action' notes, providing minimal extra meaning.

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 it updates or deactivates an existing service listing, with specific actions. It distinguishes from siblings like agentlux_service_create_listing by saying 'existing' and focusing on management actions.

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?

Explains the two actions and the key condition that deactivation is blocked when open hires exist, providing clear context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the 'existing listing' phrasing implies this is not for creation or browsing.

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