set_node_available

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses that taking a node off the market stops new rentals immediately while an existing rental continues to its end. It also requires user confirmation unless the request was explicit. It does not detail permissions or return behavior, but the core side effects are clearly stated.

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 short and front-loaded: role, action, side effects, usage condition, and confirmation rule appear in a logical order. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 mutation with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, key side effect, usage condition, and confirmation requirement. The main omission is node_id guidance, but the overall definition is sufficient for correct 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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It fully explains the available boolean semantics, but node_id is only implied by 'a node' and not described as to source or format.

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 states a specific provider action on a specific resource: taking a node off the market or putting it back, with available=false/true mapped directly to the state change. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like update_node and set_node_price because it is about market availability, not configuration or price.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use conditions: the owner needs the machine or it is rented elsewhere. It also gives an important confirmation rule, though it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as update_node or set_node_price.

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