aiva_subscription_actions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions actions like 'pause' and 'swap' but doesn't disclose permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure (e.g., confirmation messages, error states). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Perform actions on subscriptions') and lists key actions without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), parameter dependencies, and expected outcomes. While it covers the basic purpose, it doesn't compensate for the missing structured data, leaving gaps for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 75%, with three parameters documented (subscriptionId, newProductId, skipDate) and one (action) having an enum but no description. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing action types (pause, resume, skip, swap products), which aligns with the enum, but doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., newProductId is only for swap, skipDate only for skip) or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the work.

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 clearly states the verb ('perform actions') and resource ('subscriptions'), listing specific actions (pause, resume, skip, swap products). It distinguishes from sibling tools like aiva_get_subscription or aiva_list_subscriptions, which are read-only, by indicating mutation capabilities. However, it doesn't specify the exact nature of 'swap products' (e.g., product replacement vs. upgrade), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing subscription ID from aiva_get_subscription), exclusions (e.g., invalid for cancelled subscriptions), or comparisons to siblings like aiva_get_subscription for read-only access. Usage is implied by the action list but not explicitly stated.

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