set_autotests_flaky

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

Annotations already disclose non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds the key state-toggle semantics, but says nothing about whether the operation is bulk across the ID array, what happens with unknown or archived IDs, or required permissions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, both parameter polarities, and the targeting key with zero wasted wording. Nothing is buried or redundant.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive toggle with no output schema, the description gives an agent enough to call it correctly, including the ambiguous boolean. It falls short only on edge-case behavior (invalid IDs, partial failure in a bulk array) that a mutation tool would ideally mention.

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 only 50% because the value boolean is undocumented in the schema, and the description fully resolves its polarity (true=mark, false=unmark). The autoTestIds array is already documented as a non-empty UUID list in the schema, so the only gap is that array/bulk behavior is not elaborated in prose.

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 names a specific verb pair and resource: marking or unmarking autotests as flaky by id. It is clearly distinct from a generic setter like set_autotest, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'mark or unmark ... as flaky', so an agent can infer the intent. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., permission or test-run context), and no named alternatives.

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