MarathonChangeActivationMarathonPupil

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'WARNING: Destructive' largely restates them. It does add one useful operational detail, 'Requires client-side approval,' but does not explain side effects, reversibility, or consequences of deactivating a pupil.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose comes first, and the warning is placed immediately after, making the important destructive/approval context front-loaded.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description remains too thin. It does not state required inputs, what the response will be, or the explicit effect of setting bodyIsActivate to true versus false, so an agent may not invoke it confidently.

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%, and the description only loosely maps 'activate or deactivate' to bodyIsActivate. It does not explain the semantics of bodyPupilId, bodyMarathonId, or how the activate flag controls the operation, leaving the agent to infer meaning from parameter names alone.

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 verb ('activate or deactivate') and a specific resource ('a pupil in a marathon'). This activation toggle is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools dealing with moderators or adding new students, so an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 intended use is implied by the verb phrase: use this when you need to change a pupil's activation state in a marathon. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives to prefer, and no conditions under which this tool should be avoided.

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