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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds beyond that by noting that 'the configured prompt/LLM/RAG and any activated agent are preserved, so re-enabling restores the same behavior,' which clarifies the non-destructive nature. It also discloses error codes. No contradiction with annotations; it reinforces them.

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 three sentences, each delivering a distinct piece of information: the core action, the preservation side effect, and auth/errors/related tool. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and has no filler. Every 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 tool with one parameter, annotations covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, side effects, auth requirements, errors, and related tool. It does not describe the return value or success message, but that is minor given the simple nature and absence of an output schema.

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 describes the appId parameter with 100% coverage ('24-char hex appId. Required in B2B mode unless already set via ethora-app-select; ignored in app-token mode.'). The description adds value by tying the parameter to the auth modes and explicitly stating when it is needed, reinforcing the conditional requirement.

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: 'Turn the AI bot off for an app (sets bot status: "off") — it stops responding.' It names the specific resource (app) and the effect. It distinguishes itself from the sibling ethora-bot-enable-v2 by explicitly referencing it as the reverse operation, so an agent can immediately tell them apart.

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 provides usage context by specifying auth modes ('app-token mode OR B2B mode with an explicit appId') and error conditions (401/403, 404). It also names the complementary tool ('Related: ethora-bot-enable-v2 to turn back on'). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., when deletion is preferred), leaving some implicit inference.

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