set_node_offline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it labels the offline action destructive, explains the exact runtime effect on running vs new builds, and states the auth requirements (MCP_ALLOW_NODE_WRITE, plus MCP_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE for offline). This is the safety-relevant context an agent needs before mutating a node.

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?

Front-loaded with the two-way action, followed by a compact paragraph on destructiveness and prerequisites. Nearly every sentence earns its place; the auth sentence could be tightened slightly, but there is no padding.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the behavioral side is complete — effects, risk level, and prerequisites are all stated. The remaining gap is parameter documentation (0% schema coverage), which an agent would need to supply from convention rather than the definition.

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% for three parameters, so the description is the only source of meaning and it explains none of them. The boolean 'offline' is inferable from the prose, but node_name and message (with its 'Managed by MCP' default) get no explanation, leaving the agent to guess at the naming format and the purpose of the message field.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Take a node offline, or bring it back online') that precisely names the state mutation this tool performs. It is trivially distinguishable from the read-only siblings list_nodes and get_node, so an agent can select it without inspecting schemas.

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 clearly frames the offline branch as destructive and describes the operational consequence (running builds continue, no new work is scheduled, pipelines can stall), plus the required environment gates. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. use get_node/list_nodes to inspect state first), so it is clear context rather than explicit when/when-not routing.

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