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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the safety bar is lower. The description's one genuinely additive fact is the editor-role requirement, which the annotations do not cover; it says nothing about reversibility or what happens to in-flight conversations.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, followed by a compact example and the role requirement. Every clause earns its place.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the action, an example, and the permission gate, which is close to adequate. It still omits the observable effect of toggling off (message behavior, whether the change is immediate) that an agent would need to set expectations.

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 67%: project_id and function_id are documented in the schema with the sibling tools that return them, while is_active has no description. The description adds no syntax or state semantics for the boolean beyond the obvious, so the 3 baseline applies.

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 ('turn a bot function on or off') that maps directly to the tool name and the is_active parameter. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling dosai_set_rule_active, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 a concrete motivating scenario ('stop the bot from booking while the calendar is being fixed') and names the prerequisite ('Requires editor role'). It stops short of explicit when-not or alternative-tool guidance (e.g. rules vs functions).

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