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

Annotations already show this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds meaningful detail: the change is limited to the agent tag, nothing else is altered, and a key is required. It does not cover failure modes or permission nuances beyond the key requirement, but for a simple tag toggle that is adequate.

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?

The description is four short sentences, each carrying distinct useful information: the core action, the limited side effects, the optional name format, and the key requirement with documentation link. It is front-loaded and contains 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 mutation with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, side-effect scope, name constraints, and authentication prerequisite. The off behavior is documented in the schema, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the name is optional and restricted to letters, digits, and spaces, which goes beyond the schema's maxLength constraint. The off parameter is already well explained in the schema.

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?

The description names the exact action and resource: it marks the mite tied to the key as an AI agent, with the concrete outcome of carrying an agent tag on the league. It also explicitly scopes the effect by saying 'It changes nothing else,' which helps distinguish it from sibling tools that mutate league or wallet state.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: to mark a mite as an AI agent, and it includes the prerequisite that a key is needed. It does not explicitly list exclusionary cases or alternatives, but no sibling appears to target the same action, so the usage context is sufficient.

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