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

Annotations already disclose idempotent=true and destructive=false, so the mutation is framed as safe/repeatable. The description adds real context beyond that: the login requirement and the two-state toggle-only constraint. It doesn't cover failure behavior, but the annotation burden is already carried.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the login gate and the state constraint, then the prerequisite in a single clause. No filler.

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 2-param toggle with no output schema, the description covers login, allowed states, and the prerequisite lookup — everything needed to invoke correctly. Only return/failure semantics are unaddressed, which is acceptable here.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum already defines PUBLISHED/ARCHIVED, so the schema does the heavy lifting for both parameters. The description reinforces the two-state semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides — baseline 3.

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+resource (switch my products' status) and constrains scope precisely to the 已发布 ⇄ 已下架 pair, noting other states are system-managed. This distinguishes it from siblings like update_my_product that could otherwise seem interchangeable.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite flow ('先用 get_my_products 拿 productId 和当前 status') and implies a when-not boundary by stating the other states are system-managed and thus not reachable here. No named alternative for the remaining state transitions, so not a full 5.

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