manage_ws_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that reconnect restarts WS, claim can 'steal active lock' with force=true, rotate forces log rotation, and reconfig re-reads credentials. These are potentially disruptive behaviors, and the description is upfront about them, including permission constraints.

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, dense sentence with semicolon-separated actions. It is front-loaded and information-rich, though the '[Plugin v1.3.9]' prefix is unnecessary noise. Overall, it earns its place but could be slightly more concise without the version tag.

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 the tool's complexity (5 actions, 2 params), the description covers actions, permissions, and side effects. It lacks explicit return-value or error-condition information, but since no output schema exists and the actions are described sufficiently, it is adequately complete for selection and 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 50% (force is described, action is not). The description compensates by explaining each action value in parentheses and clarifying force's role ('force=true to steal active lock'). This adds meaning beyond the schema and helps the agent select correct parameter combinations.

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 'Inspect or control the machine-level WS owner' with a specific verb and resource. It enumerates five distinct actions, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from any siblings, none of which manage WS owner status.

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 action-specific usage guidance, noting that reconnect, rotate, and reconfig are 'owner-only'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the actions themselves imply their use cases (e.g., 'try become owner' for claiming). This is clear context without formal exclusions.

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