Mark a flag permanent or temporary

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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the description carries the real behavioral burden and does so well: permanent flags are excluded from removal candidates and find_stale_flags, evaluation never changes, and the specific refusal codes (PERMANENT_FLAG_HAS_EXPIRY, FEATURE_NOT_ENABLED, archived flag) are enumerated. It also notes that making a flag temporary is always allowed, defining the asymmetric failure modes.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the positive case and the permanent:false escape hatch before the failure conditions. Every clause (exclusion from find_stale_flags, refusal codes, always-allowed revert) adds distinct, actionable information with no filler.

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?

With an output schema already present, the description need not explain return values, and it instead covers the preconditions, error conditions, and downstream effects an agent needs. For a 3-param mutation with clear annotations, nothing material is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the effect of permanent: false (reverts to temporary) and the cross-parameter interaction with set_flag_expiry's expiresAtUtc: null. It adds semantic value without needing to restate key types already in the schema.

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 and resource (mark a flag permanent/temporary) and immediately scopes what "permanent" means: a kill switch, ops toggle or entitlement gate. It is distinguishable from adjacent siblings like set_flag_expiry, which it explicitly references for the expiry-clearing prerequisite.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it (flags meant to stay) and explicitly routes the dependency to set_flag_expiry with expiresAtUtc: null when an expiry blocks the change. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use vs alternatives' framing, so it stops short of a 5.

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