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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context the annotations lack: that the check continues running and recording while muted, and that omitting mute_until_ms with mute=true mutes indefinitely. It does not describe auth requirements or the response, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the WRITE: marker and the operation, followed by the duration semantics and endpoint. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description needn't explain returns, and it covers the write nature, the non-destructive-to-check behavior, the indefinite-mute case, and the endpoint. Only gaps are auth/permission context and confirmation of the toggle's reversibility, which are minor.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond it by explaining the omitted-mute_until_ms case means 'mute until unmuted' and that the value is ms since epoch in the future. Minor mismatch: description says 'mute_until' while the schema field is 'mute_until_ms', but semantics are clear.

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 (mute/unmute a check's notifications) and, crucially, the parenthetical 'the check keeps running and recording' distinguishes it from the disable_check sibling without the agent needing to open a schema. The WRITE: prefix and endpoint reinforce the operation unambiguously.

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?

Usage is implied through the mute/unmute toggle mechanics and the 'until a time or indefinitely' framing, but it never explicitly states when to choose this over nodeping_disable_check or nodeping_update_check, nor any prerequisites (e.g. ownership/permissions). Adequate but no explicit when-to-use routing.

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