QuantConnect

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

The description adds useful context about the tool's behavior when nodes are omitted, which goes beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). However, it doesn't explain what 'autoSelectNode' means in practice or discuss any rate limits, permissions needed, or error conditions that would provide richer behavioral context.

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 appropriately brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Both sentences add value, though the second sentence could be slightly more polished in its phrasing.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values) and annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description provides adequate basic context. However, for a tool that manages project nodes with potentially significant operational implications, more detail about what 'active state' means and the consequences of changes would be beneficial.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full burden for explaining parameters. It mentions 'nodes' but doesn't explain the 'projectId' parameter at all, nor does it clarify the format of node IDs or the implications of the 'model' wrapper object. This leaves significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 action ('Update the active state') and resource ('given nodes'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_project' or 'read_project_nodes', which would be needed for 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 clear context about what happens when nodes are omitted ('all the nodes become inactive and autoSelectNode is true'), which helps understand when to use this specific configuration. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, preventing a perfect score.

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