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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the change is public and visible to visitors immediately, and it does not create an incident. It omits auth requirements or rate limits, so not 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?

Front-loads the WRITE marker, then purpose, immediate-visibility impact, revert guidance, id source, and endpoint in a tight sequence. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

No output schema exists, but for a public-facing status write the description covers what changes, who sees it, reversibility, where ids come from, and the underlying call. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds operational value by pointing to statusio_list_components as the id source and giving a concrete status example (degraded_performance), which the schema alone does not supply.

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) and resource (the PUBLIC status of one component/container pair), and explicitly distinguishes itself from statusio_create_incident with 'without creating an incident'. An agent can tell exactly what this does and how it differs from the incident-creation sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Explains the selecting condition clearly ('without creating an incident') and routes the agent to statusio_list_components for ids, plus gives lifecycle guidance ('Set it back to operational when done'). It stops short of naming the alternative tool (statusio_create_incident) explicitly, but the intent is unambiguous.

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