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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that each true flip sends a message and push to the other party, which is a side effect not in the annotations. It also cautions against toggling, providing extra behavioral context. Minor ambiguity remains about whether setting enabled=false also triggers a message, but overall it adds value beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences, each earning its place. The first states the core purpose and restriction; the second covers side effects and usage warnings. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and contains no filler, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 toggle tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, it covers the main purpose, side effect (message+push), prerequisite (author only), and a usage warning (confirm before acting, avoid toggling). It does not explicitly define what 'open' vs 'pause' means operationally for the request, but the description's mention of allowing proposals covers it. It is nearly complete, with only minor ambiguity about the false-state behavior.

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 explain the parameters. It indirectly maps '当前请求' to requestId and '允许' to enabled, giving some semantic meaning. However, it never explicitly states that requestId is the ID of the cooperation request or that enabled is a boolean flag for toggling. The meaning is implied but not fully spelled out, so it only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a clear verb ('控制' - control) and resource ('当前请求' - current request), and clarifies that it governs whether modification suggestions are allowed. It implies a toggle action, distinguishing it from propose_cooperation_change or respond_cooperation_proposal, but does not explicitly name an alternative. Purpose is clear yet could be more explicit about the sibling it is not.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: only the original plan author may use it, and only after explicit instruction. It also warns against rapid toggling ('别来回切') and instructs to confirm changes with the user before initiating. These are explicit usage guidelines, though it lacks a direct comparison to sibling tools for when not to use it.

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