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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a pure DB write with no LLM cost, that it stars or unstars, and that omitting 'starred' toggles the current state. It could mention error cases or permission requirements, but the main side effects are clearly surfaced.

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?

Three concise sentences with no filler. The most decision-relevant trait (no LLM cost, pure DB write) is front-loaded, followed by the action and the key usage constraints.

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 3-parameter toggle operation with high schema coverage, the description plus schema covers identifiers, XOR rules, toggle behavior, and cost profile. It omits explicit return-value or error details, but these are not essential for this simple tool.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including XOR constraints and toggle behavior. The description reinforces these semantics but does not add significant new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 (star/unstar), the resource (a top-level agent), and the purpose (quick sidebar access). It also references the exact API endpoint it mirrors, which helps distinguish it from sibling agent-management tools.

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 gives clear operating context: pure DB write with no LLM cost, for quick sidebar access, and how to address the agent via agentId or exact title (XOR). It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives, but the starring use case is distinct enough from siblings.

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