fluig_dataset_state_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it flags the operation as a write ('⚠️ ESCRITA') and discloses that deactivation is logical (IS_ACTIVE=false) and non-destructive. It does not explain what the mandatory `confirm` flag does behaviorally, leaving a small gap.

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 write warning is front-loaded and each sentence carries distinct information (action, non-destructive semantics, scheduling confusion). Slightly dense with three emoji-prefixed warnings, but nothing is wasted.

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?

A no-annotation mutation tool with no output schema; the description covers what changes, what is not destroyed, and the main conceptual trap. Remaining gaps are the meaning of `confirm` and what the call returns or how it reports failure.

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 coverage is 75% and the schema already describes `env` in detail; the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying the three `acao` values. The `confirm` parameter remains opaque ('obrigatório' only) in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb set (ativar/inativar/converter para CUSTOM) and the resource (dataset), so an agent knows exactly what changes. It distinguishes itself from fluig_dataset_delete, but does not address the near-identical sibling fluig_dataset_enable ('enable' vs 'ativar'), which is a real source of confusion.

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?

Explicitly redirects deletion to fluig_dataset_delete and warns not to confuse this with scheduling (the `active` flag vs `serverOffline`). That is genuine when-to/when-not guidance, though the overlap with fluig_dataset_enable is left unaddressed.

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