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

Annotations already declare the write/destructive/idempotent profile, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: history is retained after disabling, reversal is not available through the API, re-enabling carries billing implications, and the underlying call is PUT /checks/{id}. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before executing a mutation.

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?

A single tight sentence pair with the WRITE marker front-loaded, followed immediately by the key behavioral caveats. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, retention, billing impact, and the endpoint. Only the return shape is left unaddressed, which is a minor gap given the annotations already establish the safety profile.

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 100%, with check_id documented (including an example format and sourcing from nodeping_list_checks) and customer_id documented for MSP accounts. The description adds no parameter detail and relies entirely on the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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 and resource ('stop a check from running (enabled=false)') and immediately distinguishes the operation from deletion by noting 'its history is kept'. Combined with the WRITE prefix and the endpoint, an agent can separate it from nodeping_mute_check, nodeping_update_check, and any delete tool.

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 operational context ('stop a check from running') and a firm when-not rule: re-enabling must be done in the NodePing app because it changes billed checks, so the agent knows this tool is one-directional. It does not explicitly compare itself to the closely related nodeping_mute_check, leaving that choice to inference.

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