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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the disclosure bar. The description usefully adds that status "none" clears the state, but it never explains how the independent saved/hidden/status fields interact (e.g. saved and hidden both true, or contradictory combinations), nor what the response returns.

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 tight sentences plus an ID-sourcing clause, with the core action and state list front-loaded. The dashboard-buttons analogy earns its place as a mental model; little is wasted, though slightly denser than strictly needed.

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 4-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the state vocabulary well but omits the return value and the interaction rules between the three state fields. An agent knows what to send but not how the write resolves.

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 carry the load — and it does for most fields: saved=save, hidden=hide, the status enum values including the "none" clear case, and listingId's provenance from list_alerted_listings. It falls short only on how saved/hidden/status combine, which the schema does not constrain.

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?

States a specific verb (change state), the exact resource (one apartment from the renter's alerts), and enumerates the resulting states (saved, hidden, contacted, toured, applied, none clears). It also cites the sibling list_alerted_listings as the ID source, so an agent can place it precisely among the alert-related 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?

Gives clear context that this is the write counterpart to list_alerted_listings and mirrors the dashboard buttons, plus where to source listingId. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or contrast with update_search_preferences, but for a state-toggle tool the routing is unambiguous.

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