agileconfig_offline_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'temporarily invisible' but does not explain if this is reversible, what happens to active clients, or any side effects. Important behavioral traits like whether the config is still queryable or if only new clients are affected are omitted.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the main action. It could include more behavioral context without becoming overly long, but currently it efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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 no output schema and two parameters (one optional), the description provides the basic function but lacks details on reversibility, error states, and how this tool fits into the larger config lifecycle (e.g., relationship to publish_config). It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100% with both parameters having descriptive comments in the schema (id and env). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not hinder understanding but also does not enhance it.

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 tool's action: taking a single configuration item offline, making it temporarily invisible to clients. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like publish_config (which makes configs visible) and delete_config (permanent removal). The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like publish_config or delete_config. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. This forces the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.

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