set_always_on

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

Beyond the mutation indicated by readOnlyHint=false, the description discloses a significant side effect: consuming a paid always-on add-on slot on Free and failing when none is free. It also explains plan-specific behavior and states that the updated container is returned, adding real behavioral context the annotations do not provide.

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 two sentences with no filler: the operation is front-loaded, then the Free/Pro caveat and return value follow. Every sentence 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 simple two-parameter boolean mutation with an output schema, the description covers the operation, plan-specific behavior, failure condition, and the return value. An agent has enough context to call it correctly without further documentation.

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% and both parameters, containerId and enabled, are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Turn a container's always-on (24/7, never sleeps) flag on or off.' The parenthetical 'never sleeps' and the flag semantics distinguish it clearly from one-shot wake/sleep operations among the sibling tools.

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 plan-dependent context: on Free it consumes a paid add-on slot and can fail, while on Pro/Scale every container is already always-on. This effectively tells an agent when the tool is needed or unnecessary, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools like wake_container.

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