Disable Legacy Bot

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds meaningful beyond-annotation context: disabling preserves the configured prompt/LLM/RAG and activated agent, so re-enabling restores behavior. It also clarifies auth modes and error responses. It doesn't cover what happens to the bot's chat history or whether the effect is immediate, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 well structured and front-loaded: main effect first, then prerequisites, auth, errors, and related tool. Every sentence serves a purpose; there is no fluff. It is concise given the amount of context it provides (prerequisites, alternative, auth, errors).

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 simple mutation tool with one parameter and annotations already covering safety and side-effect hints, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, when to use it, prerequisites, alternative paths, auth, error codes, and reversal. No output schema needed. An agent has enough information to call it correctly.

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% because the sole parameter `appId` is fully described in the input schema, including format and mode-specific behavior. The description reinforces the appId requirement in B2B mode but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Since schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: "Turn the AI bot off for an app (sets bot `status: "off"`)". It explains the effect (stops responding) and distinguishes from sibling tools like `ethora-bot-enable-v2` and the agent toolchain by noting it targets legacy per-app aiBots only. This makes the purpose 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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: for an app with a legacy per-app aiBot (dashboard-created). It also gives the alternative path for API-created apps (`ethora-agents-create-v2` → `ethora-agent-invite-to-chat` → `ethora-agents-activate-v2`) and notes the related `ethora-bot-enable-v2` to reverse. Auth modes and error codes are also covered, so the agent knows exactly when and how to use it.

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